Developed Countries

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A window has opened up for utilities outperformance. Upgrade to overweight on a short-term (1-3 month) view. Leading indicators of beverage sales have improved, heralding an upgrading in depressed expectations. Stay overweight. The pullback in consumer finance stocks appears to be contagion from the overall financial sector selloff than a reflection of deteriorating industry-specific fundamentals. Buy on weakness. Recent Changes S&P Utilities - Boost to overweight from neutral on a tactical basis. Table 1 Feature Our view remains that stocks are in a consolidation phase, waiting for economic/profit confirmation that earnings will grow into the latest valuation expansion. Thin equity market risk premia can be justified if the economy has embarked on an extended and strong non-inflationary growth path that will spawn robust corporate profitability. Chart 1A Second Half Squeeze? On this note, the third mini-economic up-cycle since the Great Recession has been underway since last year. The first two bursts of economic strength fizzled quickly, eventually requiring a new dose of stimulus to reinvigorate growth. The current up-cycle may have more legs given that the rest of the world is now participating and the U.S. economy at full employment, but it would be dangerous to become complacent. The stock-to-bond ratio has crested on a growth rate basis, and its mean reversion properties suggest that key macro gauges such as the ISM index may cool as the year progresses (Chart 1). Odds of growth-propelling fiscal stimulus, that equities have already bought and paid for, may now fade following Congress' failure to move on health care reform. Total bank credit growth is decelerating on a broad basis. Chart 1 shows that of the 8 major bank loan categories, only 1 has a positive credit impulse (the annual change in the 52-week rate of change), the other 7 are negative, i.e. it isn't simply C&I loan weakness driving the credit deceleration. Traditionally, credit and economic growth move together, so the current gap warrants close attention. Meanwhile, the reflationary impulse over the past 18 months from China is set to fade as the authorities tap the brakes, particularly in the housing market, which may throw a wrench into new construction. Chinese property prices have been especially correlated with global economic up-cycles. Real estate inflation downturns have been important global economic signals (Chart 1). Consequently, the second half of the year may 'feel' slower from a growth perspective and challenge the reflation hypothesis. Some trepidation about the durability/breadth of the economic expansion is becoming evident in internal market behavior. Our Intermediate Equity Indicator (IEI) has continued to weaken as breadth and participation thin (Chart 2). If the IEI drops below zero, the odds of a meaningful pullback will rise substantially. Keep in mind there is a lot of air between the S&P 500 index and its 40-week moving average. The number of S&P 500 groups with a positive 52-week rate of change has pulled back to post-Great Recession lows (Chart 2). Last week we showed a composite of relative industry and sector performance that also heralded a choppy period ahead for the broad averages. All of these factors suggest that a tactical consolidation needs time to play out, especially with first quarter reporting season fast approaching and optimism in the outlook bursting at the seams. While trading sentiment is not overly stretched, the truest measure of sentiment is asset valuations and expectations. On this front, our Global Economic Sentiment Index, which contrasts equity and government bond valuations in the major economies, has reached the 'extreme optimism' zone (Chart 3, middle panel). Such a reading does not automatically foretell of an imminent major equity peak, but reinforces that there is little margin for disappointment. Chart 2Deteriorating Internals Chart 3Early Signs Of Overconfidence? In addition, the trend in analyst earnings expectations is also consistent with an overriding theme of exuberance. Cyclical earnings estimates have tentatively peaked after a steep upgrade over the last few quarters, and are now sitting below 5-year growth expectations, suggesting overwhelming confidence in the longevity of the expansion. The last three times that cyclical (12-month) profit growth estimates diverged negatively from lofty long-term estimates was in 2000, 2007 and 2015 (Chart 3). Each episode coincided with ebullient global economic sentiment, and heralded market turbulence, with varying lags. The point is that when financial conditions tighten enough to undermine the cyclical growth outlook but fail to dent conviction in the long-term outlook, it is a signal of overconfidence. The good news is that financial conditions have remained historically easy and should only tighten gradually, such that the risk of a policy-induced slowdown is not acute. In sum, we expect the tactical consolidation phase to persist, especially if economic momentum cools. Exuberant expectations argue for a digestion phase, which should continue to broadly support defensive over cyclical sector positioning, a stance that has paid off nicely since late last year. We may look to selectively increase cyclical and financial sector exposure in the coming weeks if the U.S. dollar remains tame and inflation expectations perk back up, but for now, we are making a tactical addition to the defensive side of the ledger. Utilities Are Powering Up We booked sizable gains in the S&P utilities index and downgraded to neutral last summer, because of our view that bond yields were bottoming on the back of economic stabilization. Since then, relative performance collapsed by 20%, but it has recently started showing some signs of life. Is it time to re-enter this overweight position on a tactical basis? The short answer is yes. There are five reasons to buy utilities at the current juncture with a tactical (1-3 month) time horizon. A possible cooling in economic momentum will redirect capital into the sector. Last week we highlighted that the economically-sensitive transportation index may be heralding mean reversion in key activity gauges, such as the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 4). If the run of positive economic surprises reverses, utilities stocks should receive a sizeable relative performance boost. Transport stock underperformance typically means utility stock outperformance (Chart 4, bottom panel). A cycle-on-cycle analysis of relative utilities performance and the ISM manufacturing survey reveals that is pays to overweight utilities when the latter hits the current level. This has occurred seven times since the early 1990s, and the S&P utilities sector outperformed in the subsequent 3 and 6 months by an average of 3 and 5%, respectively. Only one period generated negative returns (Table 2). Chart 4Utilities Win When Transports Lose Table 2Contrary Alert: Buy Utilities Market-based inflation expectations have crested, aided by the dip in oil prices. Relative share prices have been inversely correlated with inflation expectations, owing to the link to long-dated Treasury yields. Importantly, the University of Michigan's survey inflation expectations, both short and long term, have been drifting lower signaling that the recent backup in CPI headline inflation will likely prove transitory (inflation expectations shown inverted, Chart 5). The flattening yield curve is also sending a tactical buy signal for utilities stocks (shown inverted, Chart 5). Natural gas prices are strengthening. Nat gas prices are the marginal price setter for non-regulated utilities, and the recent price spike has boosted utilities pricing power. Sell-side analysts have taken notice, aggressively ratcheting EPS numbers higher. Nevertheless, the relative EPS growth bar still remains low, signaling that a relative profit outperformance period looms (Chart 6). Chart 5External Support As... Chart 6... Earnings Recover One risk to our tactically bullish utilities view is stagnant electricity generation growth. However, if overall output growth recedes in the next quarter or two, then the non-cyclical power demand profile will shine through, offsetting low utility utilization rates in absolute terms. Bottom Line: There is scope for a playable relative performance rally in the coming one-to-three months. Boost the niche S&P utilities sector to overweight. Soft Drinks Are About To Pop Indiscriminate selling of all consumer staples immediately after the Trump victory restored value in a number of defensive consumer groups. They have stealthily outperformed for most of this year. Chart 7 shows a number of valuation yardsticks. Soft drink stocks are yielding more than both 10-year Treasurys and the broad market. Similarly, the relative P/S and P/E ratios have dipped comfortably below their respective historical means. From a technical standpoint, relative share price momentum has been pushed to a bearish extreme (Chart 7). Against this valuation and technical backdrop, any whiff of operating traction should trigger a playable outperformance phase. Industry pricing power has rebounded smartly, exiting the deflation zone (Chart 8). This firming in selling prices appears to be demand driven. Growth in relative consumer outlays on food and non-alcoholic beverages has improved. Actual industry sales growth has returned to positive territory and beverage output growth is outpacing other non-durable goods industries (Chart 8). While export trends have been a sore spot for beverage companies, the tide should soon turn. The greenback has depreciated versus emerging market (EM) currencies since mid-December, permitting EM central banks to ease monetary policy. That heralds a recovery in consumer goods exports and a reversal of negative translation FX effects (Chart 9, middle panel). Chart 7Cheap And Washed Out Chart 8Inflection Point Chart 9Export Drag Should Reverse The improvement in top-line leading indicators is particularly noteworthy given that cost inflation remains muted. Food input prices are contracting and ethylene prices, a primary packaging ingredient, are also deflating. With headcount under control (Chart 9, bottom panel), there is scope for margin expansion at a time when overall profit margins face a steady squeeze from rising wage inflation. This brightening backdrop, especially in relative terms, has not yet been embraced by the analyst community. Not only are earnings slated to trail the broad market by 7% in the coming year, but 5-year relative EPS growth has plummeted to all-time lows. Such pessimism is unwarranted. All of this implies that while recent beverage shipment growth has been soft, a recovery is likely as the year progresses. That will set the stage for a series of positive surprises, supporting share price outperformance. Bottom Line: The compellingly valued S&P soft drinks index has troughed and has a very attractive reward/risk profile. Were we not already overweight, we would lift exposure to above benchmark today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P soft drinks index are: BLBG: S5SOFD-KO, PEP, MNST, DPS. Consumer Finance: Cast Aside, But For No Good Reason Like all financials, consumer finance stocks have underperformed the broad market in recent weeks. High intra-financial sector correlations are understandable early in a corrective phase, especially given the magnitude of the initial post-election rally. However, as time passes, correlations should recede because significant discrepancies exist among industry profit drivers. For instance, any meaningful broad market correction could undermine capital markets activity via reduced appetite for new equity issues, less M&A activity and smaller trading fees, taking a bite out of investment banking profits. Elsewhere, banks have been riding hopes for higher net interest margins and an easing regulatory burden. However, without any corresponding improvement in credit growth they are now giving back those gains because bond yields have stalled, the yield curve has narrowed and expectations for deregulation are being watered down to a dilution of terms These factors justify the pullback in both banks and capital markets stocks, even if temporary. On the flipside, the consumer finance group has also been dragged down, even though leading indicators of profitability have continued to improve. As shown in past research, the credit card interest rate spread has low sensitivity to shifts in the yield curve. As such, receivables growth matters more to profits than the slope of the yield curve. Whether consumers embark on debt-financed consumption is heavily dependent on job security, debt-servicing costs, and household wealth. When consumer comfort rises, the personal savings rate tends to decline, indicating a greater propensity to spend. Household net worth has set a new all time high on the back of buoyant financial markets and recovery in house prices (Chart 10). Debt service payments remain historically depressed as a share of disposable income, underscoring that the means to re-leverage exist (Chart 10). Typically credit card charge-offs stay muted until well after debt servicing requirements hit a much higher level, either through reduced incomes or higher interest rates, or a combination of the two. At the moment, both are working in favor of credit quality, not against it. In fact, house prices have reaccelerated sharply in the past few months, which heralds share price outperformance (Chart 11, top panel). Moreover, the steady increase in housing starts bodes well for additional gains in outlays on durable goods, a positive omen for consumer credit demand. Chart 10Credit Quality Remains Strong Chart 11Bullish Leading Indicators The latter is already growing at a solid clip, in contrast with other lending categories such as C&I loan growth (Chart 11), which is weak and dragging down total bank credit. The surge in consumer income expectations points to an expanded appetite for debt (Chart 11). Consequently, the sell-off in the S&P consumer finance index should be treated as indiscriminate contagion from the rest of the financials sector rather than a reflection of deteriorating fundamentals. Recent value creation represents a buying opportunity. Bottom Line: Stick with a high-conviction overweight in the S&P consumer finance index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P consumer index are: BLBG: S5CFINX-AXP, COF, DFS, SYF, NAVI. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The locomotive of the U.S. economy, the consumer, remains supported by powerful tailwinds. The Fed will be able to tighten monetary policy relative to other central banks by a higher degree than the market appreciates. The dollar will rise further. Use this dip to buy more dollars. Being tactically long the yen is a hedge against growth disappointments. Set a stop-sell for AUD/NZD. Feature In June of last year, we wrote a piece titled "What Could Go Right?" arguing key changes in the global economy may have justified a more pro-risk stance for investors.1 The core of the argument was that markets were pricing in a lot of negatives, as the annual return of the global stock-to-bond ratio was deeply negative and could only fall further if a recession were to emerge. Moreover, as commodity prices were improving, we foresaw a waning of deflationary forces that had engulfed the world. This easing deflation would cause real rates to fall and economic activity in EM to rebound. Chart I-1Global Asset Prices: From Gloom To Glee Over the subsequent nine months, this scenario moved from the world of theories to being the reality for the global economy. Today, the annual return of the global stock-to-bond ratio is now the mirror image of last June (Chart I-1). Thus, for the stock-to-bond ratio to move higher, we need to explore where growth may come from. Moreover, we need to consider whether this growth is likely to help the dollar or help other currencies. The U.S. Is In Charge The U.S. economy continues to show the most promise. It is true that some signs do point to a weak Q1. Much noise has been made about the decline in commercial and industrial loans. We are more sanguine. To begin with, the Conference Board includes C&I loans in its list of lagging indicators, not leading ones. Additionally, C&I loans lag banks' lending standards, and, in fact, the weakness in this subsection of credit aggregates is the natural consequence of the 2015-2016 tightening in lending standards. Their recent easing points toward a rebound in C&I loans, as do core durable goods new orders (Chart I-2). What is more concerning is the slowdown in credit to households (Chart I-3). The U.S. economy is driven by household dynamics and the Conference Board does include consumer credit in its list of leading indicators. Moreover, the amount of MBS and ABS on primary dealers' balance sheets remains in a downtrend. This is worrisome because it suggests that the slowing accumulation of consumer debt on banks' balance sheet is genuine, and not a reflection of securitization (Chart I-4). Chart I-2C&I Loans##br## Will Pick Up Chart I-3However, Household Credit ##br##Dynamics Are A Worry Chart I-4Securitization Unlikely ##br##To Be The Culprit However, there are causes to minimize these concerns. Mainly, the drivers of household income and spending are still healthy. First, U.S. financial conditions remain easy, a phenomenon that tends to boost GDP growth in the following quarters, suggesting that national income will remain strong. Second, the outlook for employment in the U.S. remains robust. As Chart I-5 illustrates, the employment components of the ISM and the Philly Fed surveys both point to a pick-up in job creation. This further supports the notion that nominal household income will strengthen Third, our real disposable income indicator, based on various components of the NFIB survey, is showing that households should enjoy strong income growth in the coming months (Chart I-6). Moreover, despite the failure of the AHCA, Marko Papic, the head of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service argues that it will be much easier for the GOP to implement tax cuts, especially geared toward the middle class, than it was to repudiate the much-maligned Obamacare.2 This could further help household disposable income. Chart I-5Job Growth Will Rebound Chart I-6Household Income: Highway Star Fourth, household liquid assets represent 270% of disposable income, the highest level in decades. Moreover, household debt-servicing costs are still near multi-generational lows, suggesting that households are in the best financial shape they have been in decades. And fifth, household confidence has surged to its highest levels since 2000, reflecting both the large increase in net worth created by surging asset values as well as the very low level of unemployment in the U.S. (Chart I-7). Thus, the decline in the savings rate from 6.2% in 2015 to 5.5% at present could deepen further, adding more impetus to transform income gains into consumption gains. At the worst, this development suggests that the household savings rate will not rise much. These factors all imply that household consumption will remain robust and may in fact accelerate in the coming quarters. Consequently, that capex too has upside. We have highlighted how capex intentions have risen substantially, and this has historically been a powerful leading indicator of capex itself.3 However, the financial press is replete with commentators reminding us that the positive global economic surprises have mostly been a reflection of "soft data" and that "hard data" has not followed through. Not only do we philosophically disagree with this statement - historically soft data does indeed lead hard data - but as Chart I-8 illustrates, core capital goods orders have risen quite sharply, mimicking the developments in retail sales. A combination of strong retail sales and strong orders tend to portend to a rise in capex. Chart I-7Happy Shiny People Chart I-8Capex Will Rebound These developments raise the likelihood that U.S. growth will power the global economy and that the Fed will be in a good position to make good on its intent to increase interest rates two more times this year. In fact, there is even a growing probability that the Fed will add another tool to its tightening arsenal: letting MBS run off, resulting in a contraction of its balance sheet. The combined tightening of two more hikes and a shrinking balance sheet will be much greater than any tightening emanating from an ECB taper. As we argued last week: Europe's inflation and wage backdrop remains icy cold, limiting how far the ECB can tighten monetary policy.4 While an environment of globally rising rates is normally negative for the yen, with the BoJ displaying and even easier bias than in the past, any increase in rates in the U.S. is likely to supercharge weaknesses in the yen, as the BoJ will put a lead on JGB yields and force them to remain subdued.5 As a result of these views, we remain very committed dollar bulls on a 12-18 months basis and recommend using the current dip in the dollar as a buying opportunity, especially on a trade-weighted basis. Bottom Line: While consumer loan growth has slowed - which could result in a poor Q1 U.S. growth number - the outlook for U.S. household income and consumption remains promising. This will also feed through to higher investment growth, clearing the Fed's path toward higher rates. This dip in the dollar should be used as an occasion to buy the greenback. But Why Still Long The Yen Tactically? This position has two purposes. First, we have been worried about dynamics in China that could cause a correction in EM markets.6 More recently, the decline in Chinese house-price appreciation has deepened, representing an ominous sign for the iron ore market (Chart I-9). Poor metal prices tend to represent a negative terms of trade shock and therefore an economic handicap for many large EM nations. Moreover, back in June, the improvement in Taiwanese IP was one of the factors that prompted us to highlight a potential improvement in the global economy. So was the uptrend in our boom/bust indicator. Today, not only is the boom/bust indicator losing steam, but Taiwanese IP has sharply rolled over (Chart I-10). While this is not a reason to worry about our bullish view on the U.S. economy, this could suggest that the global manufacturing upswing has seen its heyday, a development that is likely to weigh more heavily on EM economies than on the U.S. Any EM stress is likely to boost the yen's appeal, temporarily countering the BoJ's aggressive stance. Chart I-9Problems For Iron Ore Chart I-10Two Clouds For Global Growth Second, we do not want to be dogmatic on our U.S. growth view. As the top panel of Chart I-11 illustrates, increases in 2-year Treasury yields have tended to lead to decreases in U.S. inflation expectations. While we would argue that the U.S. economy is on a stronger footing to withstand higher rates than at any point since 2010, a policy mistake is not out of the scope of probabilities. If rising rates is indeed a policy mistake, a large risk-off event would be a very likely outcome, one that boosts the yen. Finally, as the middle and bottom panels of Chart I-11 shows, a fall in U.S. inflation expectations would also extract its toll on EM and cyclical plays, further reinforcing any disappointment out of China, and further adding shine to the yen. Our original target on USD/JPY was 110, we are moving it to 108. At this point, we will become sellers of the yen, unless we see signs that the global economy is entering a more dangerous path than originally anticipated. Additionally, investors looking to express a bearish view on EM may want to go short MXN/JPY (Chart I-12). The peso has massively rallied and is now at a crucial technical spot against the JPY. Moreover, while being short USD/JPY may be a dangerous move - after all, we are playing what amounts in our view to a countertrend bounce in the yen - if EM are at risk, these risks could be exacerbated by the tightening in financial conditions created by a higher dollar. Mexico, with its high external debt, representing nearly 70% of GDP, is particularly exposed to this problem. Also, MXN, with its high liquidity for an EM currency, is often a vehicle for investors to play EM weaknesses. Thus, shorting MXN/JPY could be a great hedge for investors with long EM exposures. Chart I-11Are We Out Of The Woods Yet? Chart I-12A Gauge And A Play Bottom Line: Being tactically long the yen in a portfolio offers two advantages. First, it is a direct play on any disappointment of investors in the EM space, and, second, it is also a hedge against the risks to our strong U.S. growth view. AUD/NZD: Not A Bargain It is often argued that AUD/NZD is a bargain as it trade 6% below its purchasing power parity rate. This may be a valid reason to buy this cross, but only for investors with extremely long investment horizons, as PPP deviations can take seven years to correct. In fact, following the recent rebound in AUD/NZD, we would be inclined to short this pair once again. On the international front, AUD/USD seems to be driven by the dynamic in Chinese nominal GDP growth. We doubt Chinese nominal GDP growth will accelerate much beyond Q1. As Chart I-13 illustrates, AUD/USD seems to have moved ahead of Chinese GDP, putting this currency at risk. We also can also interpret AUD/NZD as a vehicle to play the growth rebalancing in China. The AUD (iron ore, other metals, and coal) is a bet on industrial and investment growth while the NZD (dairy, meat, and wool) is a wager on the Chinese households. As China moves away from an investment-led growth model toward a more consumption-led growth model, AUD/NZD should underperform. A simple fair value model for this cross designed to capture these dynamics as well as the USD dynamics indicates that AUD/NZD is 8% overvalued (Chart I-14). Chart I-13AUD Prices In Chinese Optimism Chart I-14AUD/NZD Is Expensive Moreover, still with an eye firmly planted on China, AUD/NZD has tended to perform poorly when Chinese monetary conditions tighten. The recent upward move in the Chinese 7-day repo rate could be a harbinger of bad things to come for this cross. Relative domestic factors also temper any bullishness on AUD/NZD. Kiwi house prices are outperforming Aussie prices and New Zealand inflation is catching up to that of Australia's. Moreover, the RBA has been paying more attention to the poor state of the Australian labor market, while that of New Zealand remains very strong. These dynamics suggest that kiwi rates could rise relative to that of Australia (Chart I-15). More technically, investors are massively long the AUD relative to the NZD (Chart I-16). This usually is a good signal to bet against this pair. Chart I-15Domestic Conditions Favor##br## Higher NZ Rates Vs. Australia Chart I-16Speculators ##br##Are Bullish Bottom Line: Shorting AUD/NZD at current levels makes sense. Not only is it a way to take advantage of the desire by Chinese authorities to rebalance growth away from the Chinese industrial sector, the Kiwi economy is outperforming that of Australia, and too much negativity has been priced in for the RBNZ relative to the RBA. Finally investors are overly long the AUD relative to the NZD. Set up a stop-sell of AUD/NZD at 1.1100, with a target of 1.000 and a stop at 1.1330. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Could Go Right?", dated June 24, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe", dated March 22, 2017 available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits", dated December 16, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain", dated March 24, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive", dated February 24, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain", dated March 24, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The DXY displayed resilience this week: the third estimate for U.S. GDP in 2016Q4 outperformed expectations at 2.1%, after being revised up from 1.9%; consumer confidence increased to 125.6, the highest level since 2000; yet Initial jobless claims ticked in at 258,000, underperforming expectations of 248,000 but beating previous figures of 261,000. Another factor lifting the dollar were recent comments by Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, who stated that Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan will be unveiled later this year. This could be considerably positive for U.S. economic growth as it will cover a large part of the economy: "transportation infrastructure, energy, water and potentially broadband and veterans hospitals as well." Although specifics were not disclosed, such stimulus in the face of tightening labor market could fan inflation. Under the assumption of a proactive Fed, this could translate into a strong dollar. Report Links: USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Last week's hawkish comments by ECB board member Ewald Nowotny drove the euro higher, while recent comments by Peter Praet confirmed that "a very substantial degree of monetary accommodation is still needed", which pushed the euro down. Promoting the euro's downside were Italian industrial sales and orders, which contracted at a monthly pace of 3.5% and 2.9% respectively, although annual rates remain positive. Article 50's invocation was another factor which contributed to volatility. How Brexit negotiations evolve will dictate movements in EUR/GBP for the foreseeable future. President Tusk's demeanor was also quite negative in his speech, focusing on minimizing "the costs for EU citizens, businesses and Member States". In other news, Portugal's Finance Minister Mario Centeno hinted at a possible upgrade to the growth forecast to around 2% from 1.5% as exports grew by 19% in January. As exports continue to be a key driver of growth for this country, this suggests a weaker euro is still needed to support growth in the periphery. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data has been mixed for Japan: Corporate services prices rose by 0.8% year-over-year, outperforming expectations. However, retail trade yearly growth deteriorated to 0.1% from 1% the previous month, underperforming expectations. Furthermore, manufacturing PMI fell to 52.6 from 53.3 the previous month. We are changing our tactical target for USD/JPY from 110 to 108. The decline in Chinese property prices as well as slowing inflation expectations in the U.S. might create a risk off environment that will affect carry currencies and will benefit the safe havens like the yen. On a cyclical basis, we remain yen bears, as recent sluggishness will only embolden BoJ policy makers to maintain their radical monetary stance. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 It's official: Theresa May has triggered Article 50. The pound reacted relatively positive to the event as both parties in the negotiations chose to start with the carrot rather than the stick: In her letter to the EU Theresa May stated that she hoped to enjoy a "deep and special" relationship with the European Union once Brexit is finalized. On the other side of the channel, Donald Tusk also pledged to work "closely" with their counterparts in London, and that he hoped that the U.K. will stay a close partner after Brexit. These developments are encouraging, as it shows that cooler heads might prevail at the end of the day. This rosier outlook in an environment where expectations for the Britain are still too pessimistic makes the pound a very attractive buy, particularly against the euro, despite the potential for short-term volatility as the stick will ineluctably come out. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017’s Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 In an attempt to curb housing market euphoria, all four major banks - ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac - increased lending rates on investor and interest-only mortgages this month. Fitch Ratings reports that the tightening was done "ahead of probable regulatory tightening", as hinted frequently by the RBA. Rising wholesale funding costs due to tighter U.S. policy is also a motivating factor behind this. For the time being, the housing market risk will continue to be restricted through macroprudential policies rather than actual tightening by the central bank. Eventually risks related to record-high household debt will limit the capacity of the RBA to increase rates. On the brighter side, banks are well positioned with strong capital buffers and pre-impairment to profitability, with Fitch rating them 'Stable'. This means that risks may not lie with the banking sector, but that the consumer sector will be the key drag on growth. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 In the current environment, although we like to continue to be short the NZD against the yen, we are also shorting AUD/NZD once again. Beyond its uncorrelated nature, there are many reasons why this is an attractive cross to short: AUD/NZD tends to perform poorly when Chinese monetary conditions tighten. Therefore, the spike in Chinese repo rates could weigh on this cross. Furthermore, investors are very long the AUD relative to the NZD. This gives us confidence that this cross might be in overbought territory and that the 5.5% rally in AUD/NZD over the last 2 months may be exhausting itself. Finally, as we have mentioned before, domestic factors still favor the NZD, as kiwi house prices are rising at a faster pace than Aussie ones, which should put pressure on rate differentials. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD is displaying some strength on the back of stronger oil prices, outweighing the pressure from a stronger USD. As mentioned last week, the trend for USD/CAD is still negative in the short term, as corroborated by a negative MACD trend. The greenback's seasonal behavior is also generally negative in April, which could buoy the CAD in the next month. Nevertheless, at the Bank of Canada's meeting in two weeks, Poloz is likely to continue displaying a dovish rhetoric, limiting the CAD's resilience. Similar to Australia, risks lie with the consumer sector, which is burdened by a huge debt load. This gives another reason for Poloz to stay off hikes for the time being and concentrate instead on promoting the implementation of macroprudential policies to regulate lending standards and mitigate housing market risks. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017’s Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF now hovers around 1.07, clearing the implied floor by the Swiss National Bank. Recent data have been positive: The Zew survey for economic expectations reached 29.6, up from 19.4 in February. It is now at the highest level in 3 years. The KOF leading indicator came at 107.6, above expectations. Although it does seem that the Swiss economy is still improving, the SNB will stay resolute in its intervention for the time being. Indeed, this was the message of SNB Governing Board Member Andrea Maechler, who asserted that there was no limit on their expansion of FX reserves, and that the Swiss franc was "strongly overvalued". We will continue to observe how the Swiss economy develops. However, for the time being the SNB is likely to keep its floor in place. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017’s Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week, even in the face of a rally in oil prices. This has been in part due to a phenomenon that should continue in the next months: an appreciation of the U.S. dollar against EM and commodity currencies. Furthermore, domestic factors should continue to weigh on the krone, as employment continues to contract and inflation is receding due to the stabilization of the krone. Indeed, Governor Olsen signaled that the Norges bank will likely leave rates unchanged for "a good while" due to these developments. Furthermore, oil could be at risk as well, as the market is starting to doubt the Russian commitment to its deal with OPEC. This, coupled with a slowdown in EM, could prompt a down leg in oil, hurting the NOK in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017’s Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data came out strong: Retail sales annual growth remains unchanged at 2.7%; The producer price index grew at 7.5%; Consumer confidence for March was at 102.6, down from the previous 104.3. Interesting technical developments for the krona are pointing to further weakness. USD/SEK has rebounded from oversold levels and the MACD line is beginning to overtake the signal line. More importantly, the Coppock curve is rebounding, signifying a bullish trend. EUR/SEK is showing similar signs with the MACD pointing up and the Coppock curve rebounding. Interestingly, Swedish inflation expectations have substantially decreased this week which might give the Riksbank cover to remain dovish. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017’s Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Economic Outlook: The global economy is in a reflationary window that will stay open until mid-2018. Growth will then slow, culminating in a recession in 2019. While the recession is likely to be mild, the policy response will be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation beginning in the early 2020s. Overall Strategy: Investors should overweight equities and high-yield credit during the next 12 months, while underweighting safe-haven government bonds and cash. However, be prepared to scale back risk next spring. Fixed Income: For now, stay underweight U.S. Treasurys within a global fixed-income portfolio; remain neutral on the euro area and the U.K.; and overweight Japan. Bonds will rally in the second half of 2018 as growth begins to slow, but then begin a protracted bear market. Equities: Favor higher-beta developed markets such as Europe and Japan relative to the U.S. in local-currency terms over the next 12 months. Emerging markets will benefit from the reflationary tailwind, but deep structural problems will drag down returns. Currencies: The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% before peaking in mid-2018. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar. The euro will grind lower, as will the Chinese yuan. The pound is close to a bottom. Commodities: Favor energy over metals. Gold will move higher once the dollar peaks in the middle of next year. Feature Reflation, Recession, And Then Stagflation The investment outlook over the next five years can be best described as a three-act play: First Act: "Reflation" (The present until mid-2018) Second Act: "Recession" (2019) Third Act: "Stagflation" (2021 onwards) Investors who remain a few steps ahead of the herd will prosper. All others will struggle to stay afloat. Let us lift the curtain and begin the play. Act 1: Reflation Reflation Continues If there is one chart that best encapsulates the reflation theme, Chart 1 is it. It shows the sum of the Citibank global economic and inflation surprise indices. The combined series currently stands at the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey. Consistent with the surprise indices, Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI) has risen to the strongest level in three years. The 3-month average for developed markets stands at a 6-year high (Chart 2). Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Current Activity Indicators Have Perked Up What accounts for the acceleration in economic growth that began in earnest in mid-2016? A number of factors stand out: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment finally ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7% off the level of U.S. real GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 3). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus. The era of fiscal austerity ended. Chart 4 shows that the fiscal thrust in developed economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time since 2010. Financial conditions eased in most economies, delivering an impulse to growth that is still being felt. In the U.S., for example, junk bond yields dropped from a peak of 10.2% in February 2016 to 6.3% at present (Chart 5). A surging stock market and rising home prices also helped buoy consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 4The End Of Fiscal Austerity? Chart 5Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Fine For Now... Looking out, global growth should stay reasonably firm over the next 12 months. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 6). The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 7 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will remain sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Chart 6Global Growth Will Stay Strong In The Near Term Chart 7Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity ... But Storm Clouds Are Forming Home prices cannot rise faster than rents or incomes indefinitely; nor can equity prices rise faster than earnings. Corporate spreads also cannot keep falling. As the equity and housing markets cool, and borrowing costs start climbing on the back of higher government bond yields, the tailwind from easier financial conditions will dissipate. When that happens - most likely, sometime next year - GDP growth will slow. In and of itself, somewhat weaker growth would not be much of a problem. After all, the economy is currently expanding at an above-trend pace and the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions to some extent - it would not be raising rates if it didn't! The problem is that trend growth is much lower now than in the past - only 1.8% according to the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections. Living in a world of slow trend growth could prove to be challenging. The U.S. corporate sector has been feasting on credit for the past four years (Chart 8). Household balance sheets are still in reasonably good shape, but even here, there are areas of concern. Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 9). Together, these two categories account for over two-thirds of non-housing related consumer liabilities. Chart 8U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 9U.S. Household Balance Sheets Are In Good Shape, But Auto And Student Loans Are A Potential Problem The risk is that defaults will rise if GDP growth falls below 2%, a pace that has often been described as "stall speed." This could set in motion a vicious cycle where slower growth causes firms to pare back debt, leading to even slower growth and greater pressure on corporate balance sheets - in other words, a recipe for recession. Act 2: Recession Redefining "Tight Money" "Expansions do not die of old age," Rudi Dornbusch once remarked, "They are killed by the Fed." On the face of it, this may not seem like much of a concern. If the Fed raises rates in line with the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, the funds rate will only be about 2.5% by mid-2019 (Chart 10). That may not sound like much, but keep in mind that the so-called neutral rate - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - may be a lot lower now than in the past. Also keep in mind that it can take up to 18 months before the impact of tighter financial conditions take their full effect on the economy. Thus, by the time the Fed has realized that it has tightened monetary policy by too much, it may be too late. As we have argued in the past, a variety of forces have pushed down the neutral rate over time.1 For example, the amount of investment that firms need to undertake in a slow-growing economy has fallen by nearly 2% of GDP since the late-1990s (Chart 11). And getting firms to take on even this meager amount of investment may require a lower interest rate since modern production techniques rely more on human capital than physical capital. Chart 10Will The Fed's 'Gradual' Rate Hikes End Up Being Too Much? Chart 11Less Investment Required Rising inequality has also reduced aggregate demand by shifting income towards households with high marginal propensities to save (Chart 12). This has forced central banks to lower interest rates in order to prop up spending. From this perspective, it is not too surprising that income inequality and debt levels have been positively correlated over time (Chart 13). Chart 12Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Chart 13U.S.: Positive Correlation Between Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Then there is the issue of the dollar. The broad real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 19% since mid-2014 (Chart 14). According to the New York Fed's trade model, this has reduced the level of real GDP by nearly 2% relative to what it would have otherwise been. Standard "Taylor Rule" equations suggest that interest rates would need to fall by around 1%-to-2% in order to offset a loss of demand of this magnitude. This means that if the economy could withstand interest rates of 4% when the dollar was cheap, it can only withstand interest rates of 2%-to-3% today. And even that may be too high. Consider the message from Chart 15. It shows that real rates have been trending lower since 1980. The real funds rate averaged only 1% during the 2001-2007 business cycle, a period when demand was being buoyed by a massive, debt-fueled housing bubble; fiscal stimulus in the form of the two Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a weakening dollar; and by a very benign global backdrop where emerging markets were recovering and Europe was doing well. Chart 14The Dollar Is In The Midst Of Its Third Great Bull Market Chart 15The Neutral Rate Has Fallen Today, the external backdrop is fragile, the dollar has been strengthening rather than weakening, and households have become more frugal (Chart 16). And while President Trump has promised plenty of fiscal largess, the reality may turn out to be a lot more sobering than the rhetoric. Chart 16Return To Thrift End Of The Trump Trade? Not Yet The failure to replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt in the eyes of many observers about the ability of Congress to pass other parts of Trump's agenda. As a consequence, the "Trump Trade" has gone into reverse over the past few weeks, pushing down the dollar and Treasury yields in the process. We agree that the "Trump Trade" will eventually fizzle out. However, this is likely to be more of a story for 2018 than this year. If anything, last week's fiasco may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly The GOP's proposed legislation would have reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. That would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. The failure to pass an Obamacare replacement serves as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy Where the disappointment will appear is not during the legislative process, but afterwards. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from corporate tax cuts are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the corporate tax cuts may simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 17From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Chart 18Euro Area Credit Impulse Will Fade In The Second Half Of 2018 Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 17). As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and lavish fiscal stimulus only to get neither. Euro Area: A 12-Month Window For Growth The outlook for the euro area over the next 12 months is reasonably bright, but just as in the U.S., the picture could darken later next year. Euro area private sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year. This may not sound like a lot, but that is the fastest pace of growth since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that drives GDP growth. Thus, as credit growth levels off next year, the euro area's credit impulse will fall back towards zero, setting the stage for a period of slower GDP growth (Chart 18). In contrast to the U.S., the ECB is likely to resist the urge to raise the repo rate before growth slows. That's the good news. The bad news is that the market could price in some tightening in monetary policy anyway, leading to a "bund tantrum" later this year. As in the past, the ECB will be able to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, what Draghi cannot do much about is the low level of the neutral rate in the euro area. If the neutral rate is low in the U.S., it is probably even lower in the euro area, reflecting the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. Chart 19Anti-Euro Sentiment Is High In Italy Indeed, it is entirely possible that the neutral rate is negative in the euro area, even in nominal terms. If that's the case, the ECB will find it difficult to keep inflation from falling once the economy begins to slow late next year. The U.K.: And Now The Hard Part The U.K. fared better than most pundits expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the Brexit vote has not cast a pall over the economy. The pound has depreciated by 11% against the euro and 16% against the dollar since that fateful day, while gilt yields have fallen across the board. Had it not been for this easing in financial conditions, the economic outcome would have been far worse. As the tailwind from the pound's devaluation begins to recede next year, the U.K. economy could suffer. Slower growth in continental Europe and the rest of the world could also exacerbate matters. The severity of the slowdown will hinge on the outcome of Brexit negotiations. On the one hand, the EU has an interest in taking a hardline stance to discourage separatist forces elsewhere, particularly in Italy where pro-euro sentiment is tumbling (Chart 19). On the other hand, the EU still needs the U.K. as both a trade partner and a geopolitical ally. Investors may therefore be surprised by the relatively muted negotiations that transpire over the coming months. In fact, news reports indicate that Brussels has already offered the U.K. a three year transitional deal that will give London plenty of time to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU. In addition, the EU has dangled the carrot of revocability, suggesting that the U.K. would be welcomed back with open arms if enough British voters were to change their minds. Whatever the path, our geopolitical service believes that political risk actually bottomed with the January 17 Theresa May speech.2 If that turns out to be the case, the pound is unlikely to weaken much from current levels. China And EM: The Calm Before The Storm? The Chinese economy should continue to perform well over the coming months. The Purchasing Manager Index for manufacturing remains in expansionary territory and BCA's China Leading Economic Indicator is in a clear uptrend (Charts 20 and 21). Chart 20Bright Spots In The Chinese Economy Chart 21Improving LEI Points To Further Growth Acceleration Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators, with growth rates matching levels last seen during the boom years before the global financial crisis. Historically, construction machinery sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 22). Reflecting this reflationary trend, the producer price index rose by nearly 8% year-over-year in February, a 14-point swing from the decline of 6% experienced in late-2015. Historically, rising producer prices have resulted in higher corporate profits and increased capital expenditures, especially among private enterprises (Chart 23). Chart 22An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 23Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits The key question is how long the good news will last. As in the rest of the world, our guess is that the Chinese economy will slow late next year, setting the stage for a major growth disappointment in 2019. Weaker growth abroad will be partly to blame, but domestic factors will also play a role. The Chinese housing market has been on a tear. The authorities are increasingly worried about a property bubble and have begun to tighten the screws on the sector. The full effect of these measures should become apparent sometime next year. Fiscal policy is also likely to be tightened at the margin. The IMF estimates that China benefited from a positive fiscal thrust of 2.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2016. The fiscal thrust is likely to be close to zero in 2017 and turn negative to the tune of nearly 1% of GDP in 2018 and 2019. The growth outlook for other emerging markets is likely to mirror China's. The IMF expects real GDP in emerging and developing economies to rise by 5.1% in Q4 of 2017 relative to the same quarter a year earlier, up from 4.2% in 2016 (Table 2). The biggest acceleration is expected to occur in Brazil, where the economy is projected to grow by 1.4% in 2017 after having contracted by 1.9% in 2016. Russia and India should also see better growth numbers. Table 2World Economic Outlook: Global Growth Projections We do not see any major reason to challenge these numbers for this year, but think the IMF's projections will turn out to be too rosy for 2018, and especially, 2019. As BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service has documented, the lack of structural reforms in EMs over the past few years has depressed productivity growth. High debt levels also cloud the picture. Chart 24 shows that debt levels have continued to grow as a share of GDP in most emerging markets. In EMs such as China, where banks benefit from a fiscal backstop, the likelihood of a financial crisis is low. In others such as Brazil, where government finances are in precarious shape, the chances of another major crisis remains uncomfortable high. Japan: The End Of Deflation? If there is one thing investors are certain about it is that deflationary forces in Japan are here to stay. Despite a modest increase in inflation expectations since July 2016, CPI swaps are still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next two decades, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan's 2% target. But could the market be wrong? We think so. Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 25). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. Over the past quarter century, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at only 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 26). Chart 24What EM Deleveraging? Chart 25Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 26Japan: Low Household Saving Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seems to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous cycle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Unfortunately, external events could conspire to sabotage Japan's escape from deflation. If the global economy slows in late-2018 - leading to a recession in 2019 - Japan will be hard hit, given the highly cyclical nature of its economy. And this could cause Japanese policymakers to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at the problem, including doing something that they have so far resisted: introducing a "helicopter money" financed fiscal stimulus program. Against the backdrop of weak potential GDP growth and a shrinking reservoir of domestic savings, the government may get a lot more inflation than it bargained for. Act 3: Stagflation Who Remembers The 70s Anymore? By historical standards, the 2019 recession will be a mild one for most countries, especially in the developed world. This is simply because the excesses that preceded the subprime crisis in 2007 and, to a lesser extent the tech bust in 2000, are likely to be less severe going into the next global downturn than they were back then. The policy response may turn out to be anything but mild, however. Memories of the Great Recession are still very much vivid in most peoples' minds. No one wants to live through that again. In contrast, memories of the inflationary 1970s are fading. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a big role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.3 Those who experienced stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in their diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through more dovish eyes than their predecessors. Even if one takes the generational mix out of the equation, there are good reasons to aim for higher inflation in today's environment. For one thing, debt is high. The simplest way to reduce real debt burdens is by letting inflation accelerate. In addition, the zero bound is less likely to be a problem if inflation were higher. After all, if inflation were running at 1% going into a recession, real rates would not be able to fall much below -1%. But if inflation were running at 3%, real rates could fall to as low as -3%. The Politics Of Inflation Political developments will also facilitate the transition to higher inflation. In the U.S., the presidential election campaign will start coming into focus in 2019. If the economy enters a recession then, Donald Trump will go ballistic. The infrastructure program that Republicans in Congress are downplaying now will be greatly expanded. Gold-plated hotels and casinos will be built across the country. Of course, several years could pass between when an infrastructure bill is passed and when most new projects break ground. By that time, the economy will already be recovering. This will help fuel inflation. As the economy turns down in 2019, the Fed will also be forced to play ball. The market's current obsession over whether President Trump wants a "dove" or a "hawk" as Fed chair misses the point. He wants neither. He wants someone who will do what they are told. This means that the next Fed chair will likely be a "really smart" business executive with little-to-no-experience in central banking and even less interest in maintaining the Federal Reserve's institutional independence. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries that lack independent central banks (Chart 27). This may be the fate of the U.S. Chart 27Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Europe's Populists: Down But Not Out Whether something similar happens in Europe will also depend on political developments. For the next 18 months at least, the populists will be held at bay (Chart 28). Le Pen currently trails Macron by 24 percentage points in a head-to-head contest. It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. In Germany, support for the europhile Social Democratic Party is soaring, as is support for the common currency itself. For the time being, euro area risk assets will be able to climb the proverbial political "wall of worry." However, if the European economy turns down in 2019, all this may change. Chart 29 shows the strong correlation between unemployment rates in various French départements and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Should French unemployment rise, her support will rise as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 28France And Germany: Populists Held At Bay For Now Chart 29Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen Meanwhile, there is a high probability that the migrant crisis will intensify at some point over the next few years. Several large states neighboring Europe are barely holding together - Egypt being a prime example - and could erupt at any time. Furthermore, demographic trends in Africa portend that the supply of migrants will only increase. In 2005, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2015 revision, the UN doubled its estimate to 4 billion. And even that may be too conservative because it assumes that the average number of births per woman falls from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period (Chart 30). Chart 30Population Pressures In Africa The existing European political order is not well equipped to deal with large-scale migration, as the hapless reaction to the Syrian refugee crisis demonstrates. This implies that an increasing share of the public may seek out a "new order" that is more attuned to their preferences. European history is fraught with regime shifts, and we may see yet another one in the 2020s. The eventual success of anti-establishment politicians on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that open border immigration policies and free trade - the two central features of globalization - will come under attack. Consequently, an inherently deflationary force, globalization, will give way to an inherently inflationary one: populism. The Productivity Curse Just as the "flation" part of stagflation will become more noticeable as the global economy emerges from the 2019 recession, so will the "stag." Chart 31 shows that productivity growth has fallen across almost all countries and regions. There is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.4 Cyclical factors have played some role. Weak investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock. This means that today's workers have not benefited from the same improvement in the quality and quantity of capital as they did in previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. Most prominently, the gains from the IT revolution have leveled off. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than on businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. Human capital accumulation has also decelerated, dragging productivity growth down with it. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 32). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 33).5 Given that test scores are extremely low in most countries with rapidly growing populations, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart 31Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies Chart 32The Contribution To Growth From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 33Math Skills Around The World Productivity And Inflation The slowdown in potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset, but becomes inflationary later on (Chart 34). Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also curtails consumption, as households react to the prospect of smaller real wage gains. Chart 34A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation.6 One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a decade during which productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Financial Markets Overall Strategy Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors with a 12-month horizon should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. Global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months, followed by a gradual recovery that sees the restoration of full employment in most countries by 2021. At that point, inflation will take off, rising to over 4% by the middle of the decade. The 2020s will be remembered as a decade of intense pain for bond investors. In relative terms, equities will fare better than bonds, but in absolute terms they will struggle to generate a positive real return. As in the 1970s, gold will be the standout winner. Chart 35 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 35Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Equities Cyclically Favor The Euro Area And Japan Over The U.S. Stronger global growth is powering an acceleration in corporate earnings. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 36 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. We prefer euro area and Japanese stocks relative to U.S. equities over a 12-month horizon. We would only buy Japanese stocks on a currency-hedged basis, as the prospect of a weaker yen is the main reason for being overweight Japan. In contrast, we would still buy euro area equities on a U.S. dollar basis, even though our central forecast is for the euro to weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months. Our cyclically bullish view on euro area equities reflects several considerations. For starters, they are cheap. Euro area stocks currently trade at a Shiller PE ratio of only 17, compared with 29 for the U.S. (Chart 37). Some of this valuation gap can be explained by different sector weights across the two regions. However, even if one controls for this factor, as well as the fact that euro area stocks have historically traded at a discount to the U.S., the euro area still comes out as being roughly one standard deviation cheap compared with the U.S. (Chart 38). Chart 36Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Chart 37Euro Area Stocks Are A Bargain... Chart 38...No Matter How You Look At It European Banks Are In A Cyclical Sweet Spot Of course, if euro area banks flounder over the next 12 months as they have for much of the past decade, none of this will matter. However, we think that the region's banks have finally turned the corner. The ECB is slowly unwinding its emergency measures and core European bond yields have risen since last summer. This has led to a steeper yield curve, helping to flatter net interest margins. Chart 39 shows that the relative performance of European banks is almost perfectly correlated with the level of German bund yields. Our European Corporate Health Monitor remains in improving territory, in contrast to the U.S., where it has been deteriorating since 2013 (Chart 40). Profit margins in Europe have room to expand, whereas in the U.S. they have already maxed out. The capital positions of European banks have also improved greatly since the euro crisis. Not all banks are out of the woods, but with nonperforming loans trending lower, the need for costly equity dilution has dissipated (Chart 41). Meanwhile, euro area credit growth is accelerating and loan demand continues to expand. Chart 39Performance Of European Banks And Bond Yields: A Good Fit Chart 40Corporations Healthier In The Euro Area Chart 41Cyclical Background Positive For Bank Stocks Beyond a 12-month horizon, the outlook for euro area banks and the broader stock market look less enticing. The region will suffer along with the rest of the world in 2019. The eventual triumph of populist governments could even lead to the dissolution of the common currency. This means that euro area stocks should be rented, not owned. The same goes for U.K. equities. EM: Uphill Climb Emerging market equities tend to perform well when global growth is strong. Thus, it would not be surprising if EM equities continue to march higher over the next 12 months. However, the structural problems plaguing emerging markets that we discussed earlier in this report will continue to cast a pall over the sector. Our EM strategists favor China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Russia. They are neutral on Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa; and are underweight Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and Turkey. Fixed Income Global Bond Yields To Rise Further We put out a note on July 5th entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" recommending that clients go structurally underweight safe-haven government bonds.7 As luck would have it, we penned this report on the very same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We continue to think that asset allocators should maintain an underweight position in global bonds over the next 12 months. In relative terms, we favor Japan over the U.S. and have a neutral recommendation on the euro area and the U.K. Chart 42The Market Expects 50 Basis Points Of Tightening Over The Next 12 Months Underweight The U.S. For Now We expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to rise to around 3.2% over the next 12 months. The Fed is likely to raise rates by a further 100 basis points over this period, about 50 bps more than the 12-month discounter is currently pricing in (Chart 42). In addition, the Fed will announce later this year or in early 2018 that it will allow the assets on its balance sheet to run off as they mature. This could push up the term premium, giving long Treasury yields a further boost. Thus, for now, investors should underweight Treasurys on a currency-hedged basis within a fixed-income portfolio. The cyclical peak for both Treasury yields and the dollar should occur in mid-2018. Slowing growth in the second half of that year and a recession in 2019 will push the 10-year Treasury yield back towards 2%. After that, bond yields will grind higher again, with the pace accelerating in the early 2020s as the stagflationary forces described above gather steam. Neutral On Europe, Overweight Japan Yields in the euro area will follow the general contours of the U.S., but with several important qualifications. The ECB is likely to roll back some of its emergency measures over the next 12 months, including suspending the Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, or TLTROs. It could also raise the deposit rate slightly, which is currently stuck in negative territory. However, in contrast to the Fed, the ECB is unlikely to hike its key policy rate, the repo rate. And while the ECB will "taper" asset purchases, it will not take any steps to shrink the size of its balance sheet. As such, fixed-income investors should maintain a benchmark allocation to euro area bonds. Chart 43A Bit More Juice Left A benchmark weighting to gilts is also warranted. With the Brexit negotiations hanging in the air, it is doubtful that the Bank of England would want to hike rates anytime soon. On the flipside, rising inflation - though largely a function of a weak currency - will make it difficult for the BoE to increase asset purchases or take other steps to ease monetary policy. We would recommend a currency-hedged overweight position in JGBs. The Bank of Japan is committed to keeping the 10-year yield pinned to zero. Given that neither actual inflation nor inflation expectations are anywhere close to that level, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ will jettison its yield-targeting regime anytime soon. With government bond yields elsewhere likely to grind higher, this makes JGBs the winner by default. High-Yield Credit: Still A Bit Of Juice Left The fact that the world's most attractive government bond market by our rankings - Japan - is offering a yield of zero speaks volumes. As long as global growth stays strong and corporate default risk remains subdued, investors will maintain their love affair with high-yield credit. Thus, while credit spreads have fallen dramatically, they could still fall further (Chart 43). Only when corporate stress begins to boil over in late 2018 will things change. Nevertheless, investors will continue to face headwinds from rising risk-free yields in most economies even in the near term. This implies that the return from junk bonds in absolute terms will fall short of what is delivered by equities over the next 12 months. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44Real Rate Differentials Are Driving Up The Dollar Real Rate Differentials Will Support The Greenback We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by about 10% over the next 12 months. Historically, changes in real interest rate differentials have been the dominant driver of currency movements in developed economies. The past few years have been no different. Chart 44 shows that the ascent of the trade-weighted dollar since mid-2014 has been almost perfectly matched by an increase in U.S. real rates relative to those abroad. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners are likely to widen further through to the middle of 2018 as the Fed raises rates more quickly than current market expectations imply, while other central banks continue to stand pat. Accordingly, we would fade the recent dollar weakness. As we discussed in "The Fed's Unhike," the March FOMC statement was not as dovish as it might have appeared at first glance.8 Given that monetary conditions eased in the aftermath of the Fed meeting - exactly the opposite of what the Fed was trying to achieve - it is likely that the FOMC's rhetoric will turn more hawkish in the coming weeks. The Yen Has The Most Downside, The Pound The Least Among the major dollar crosses, we see the most downside for the yen over the next 12 months. The Bank of Japan will continue to keep JGB yields anchored at zero. As yields elsewhere rise, investors will shift their money out of Japan, causing the yen to weaken. Only once the global economy begins to teeter into recession late next year will the yen - traditionally, a "risk off" currency - begin to rebound. The euro will also weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months, although not as much as the yen. The ECB's "months to hike" has plummeted from nearly 60 last summer to 26 today (Chart 45). That seems too extreme. Core inflation in the euro area is well below U.S. levels, even if one adjusts for measurement differences between the two regions (Chart 46). The neutral rate is also lower in the euro area, as discussed previously. This sharply limits the ability of the ECB to raise rates. Chart 45Market's Hawkish View Of The ECB Is Too Extreme Chart 46Core Inflation In The U.S. Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing Unlike most currencies, sterling should be able to hold its ground against the dollar over the next 12 months. The pound is very cheap by most metrics (Chart 47). The prospect of contentious negotiations over Brexit with the EU is already in the price. What may not be in the price is the possibility that the U.K. will move quickly to reach a deal with the EU. If such a deal fails to live up to the promises made by the Brexit campaign - a near certainty in our view - a new referendum may need to be scheduled. A new vote could yield a much different result than the first one. If the market begins to sniff out such an outcome, the pound could strengthen well before the dust settles. EM And Commodity Currencies The RMB will weaken modestly against the dollar over the coming year. As we have discussed in the past, China's high saving rate will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a large current account surplus. This requires a weak currency.9 Nevertheless, a major devaluation of the RMB is not in the cards. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has been driven by an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 48). At this point, most of the hot money has fled the country. This suggests that the pace of capital outflows will subside. Chart 47Pound: Cheap By All Accounts Chart 48Hot Money In, Hot Money Out A somewhat weaker RMB could dampen demand for base and bulk metals. A slowdown in Chinese construction activity next year could also put added pressure on metals prices. Our EM strategists are especially bearish on the South African rand, Brazilian real, Colombian peso, Turkish lira, Malaysian ringgit, and Indonesian rupiah. Crude should outperform metals over the next 12 months. This will benefit the Canadian dollar and other oil-sensitive currencies. However, Canada's housing bubble is getting out of hand and could boil over if domestic borrowing costs climb in line with rising long-term global bond yields. A sagging property sector will limit the ability of the Bank of Canada to raise short-term rates. On balance, we see modest downside for the CAD/USD over the coming year. The Aussie dollar will suffer even more, given the country's own housing excesses and its export sector's high sensitivity to metal prices. Finally, a few words on the most of ancient of all currencies: gold. We do not expect bullion to fare well over the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and rising bond yields are both bad news for the yellow metal. However, once central banks start slashing rates in 2019 and stagflationary forces begin to gather steam in the early 2020s, gold will finally have its day in the sun. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," dated March 13, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?" dated January 25, 2017, and Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Note to economists: We can think of this relationship within the context of the Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. In the standard setup where the saving rate is fixed, slower population and productivity growth will always result in a lower equilibrium real interest rate. However, consider a more realistic setup where: 1) the saving rate rises initially as the population ages, but then begins to decline as a larger share of the workforce enters retirement; and 2) habit persistence affects consumer spending, so that households react to slower real wage growth by saving less rather than cutting back on consumption. In that sort of environment, the neutral rate could initially fall, but then begin to rise. If the central bank reacts slowly to changes in the neutral rate, or monetary policy is otherwise constrained by the zero bound on interest rates and/or political considerations, the initial effect of slower trend GDP growth will be deflationary while the longer-term outcome will be inflationary. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Unhike," dated March 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Financials stocks have taken it on the chin, reflecting the unwinding of the 'Trump Trade' following the Administration's inability to tackle health care reform. As a result, the financials sector is reverting from hopes for deregulation to fundamentals for support. Worrisomely, credit growth has stalled. The middle panel of the chart shows that the credit impulse is sinking quickly. While this may prove a temporary/transitory phenomenon, the breadth of the credit contraction is broad-based, and thus, worthy of close attention. Of the eight loan categories tracked by the Fed, only one loan segment has a positive credit impulse: consumer loans. Historically, both the credit impulse and our diffusion index for the credit impulse have been solid leading indicators for relative financials EPS growth. Consequently, there is no confirmation that earnings momentum has turned the corner on a sustained basis. Bottom Line: Within a neutral overall financials stance we remain underweight the S&P banks index and continue to overweight the S&P consumer finance sub-group, which has high-conviction status. (If you would like to receive the breakdown of the credit impulse per loan category please email us at clientservices@bcaresearch.com and we will email you the chart.) The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P consumer finance and S&P banks index are: BLBG: BLBG: S5CFINX-AXP, COF, DFS, SYF, NAVI and BLBG: S5BANKX -WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, respectively.

Highlights Animal spirits have soared, according to soft data from surveys. But 6-month credit impulses have slumped in the euro area, U.S. and China, according to hard data from the ECB, Federal Reserve and PBOC. The negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than soaring animal spirits - is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. A growth-pause would blindside financial markets. Lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and slumping credit impulses is resolved. Feature Animal spirits have soared since the surprise election of President Trump on November 8. For many investors, the heightened animal spirits - shown in surging sentiment and survey data (Chart I-2) - are a strong signal that the global economy is about to accelerate. Unfortunately, these investors could end up very disappointed. Chart of the Week6-Month Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-2Animal Spirits Have Soared... The problem is that the hard data on bank credit are giving the exact opposite signal. Over the past few months, global credit flows have slumped (Chart of the Week, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3...But Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-4The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Turned Negative Despite Heightened Animal Spirits The ECB's latest Monetary Developments in the Euro Area shows that the euro area 6-month credit flow has shrunk by €26 billion. The most recent 6-month credit flow fell to €321 billion from €347 billion in the previous period. The U.S. Federal Reserve's latest weekly H8 release paints an even starker picture. The U.S. 6-month credit flow has shrunk by $271 billion, equivalent to 3% of U.S. GDP (at an annualised rate). The most recent 6-month credit flow plunged to just $152 billion from $423 billion in the previous period. For completeness, look at the world's other major economy, China. Given the lower credibility of official bank credit data in China we prefer to focus on the broad money supply numbers. The People's Bank of China does not seasonally adjust this data, but it is straightforward to do ourselves using standard seasonal adjustment functions. The seasonally-adjusted data shows that the most recent 6-month flow, at 8.1 trillion yuan, was slightly higher than the preceding 7.7 trillion yuan. Nevertheless, the resulting marginally positive China 6-month impulse is sharply down from previous months. Why Optimism Is Up, But Borrowing Is Down Let's explain why sentiment data and credit flows have headed in polar opposite directions since the shock electoral success of Donald Trump. Imagine that firms (or households) are willing to borrow $1 billion for investment projects at a long-term borrowing cost of 1.5%. Then, an unexpected event causes animal spirits to surge. Suddenly, firms will become more optimistic about the expected profits from the investment projects. At this higher net1 profitability, firms might be willing to borrow and invest more than $1 billion, let's say $1.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher and so will the credit flow, resulting in a credit impulse of +$0.5 billion. Chart I-5A Sharp Rise In Borrowing Costs Has##br## Countered Heightened Animal Spirits Now imagine that in response to this improved economic outlook, the financial markets expect the central bank to hike interest rates quicker and further. So the markets push up the bond yield to 2.0%. For firms, this higher cost of long-term borrowing might now exactly neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At this unchanged net profitability, firms will continue to borrow and invest $1 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will be unchanged, resulting in a credit impulse of zero. Finally imagine that in response to the improved economic outlook, the financial markets get carried away. They push up the bond yield to 2.5%. Now, the much higher cost of long-term borrowing will more than neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At a sharply lower net profitability, firms will borrow and invest less than $1 billion, let's say $0.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will fall, resulting in a credit impulse of -$0.5 billion. Note that in all three cases, animal spirits are up sharply. For credit flows, these heightened animal spirits in isolation are a tailwind. But any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing is a headwind. It follows that the net impact on credit flows depends on the relative strengths of the tailwind from heightened animal spirits and the headwind from higher long-term borrowing costs. Today, we would suggest that for global credit flows, the tailwind from heightened animal spirits is weaker than the headwind from the sharpest rise in bond yields in a decade (Chart I-5). The result is a negative 6-month global credit impulse. And it is this negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. The History Of "Animal Spirits" In the early nineteenth century, the 'British Currency School', led by David Ricardo, postulated that expansions and contractions of bank credit and the broad money supply are the main cause of the economic cycle. We are very strong advocates of Ricardo's Currency School thesis. In opposition to the Currency School, the 'British Banking School' believed that expansions and contractions of bank credit are merely the passive effects of the economic cycle. The true cause of the economic cycle is fluctuations in business speculation and expectations of profit, which ultimately come from psychological mood swings. A century later in 1936, John Maynard Keynes wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In it, Keynes reiterated the Banking School's psychological mood swing explanation of the cycle. To describe these mood swings, he came up with the now very familiar phrase "animal spirits". Keynes blamed the Great Depression on the collapse of these animal spirits, and a consequent collapse in investment and consumption. But Keynes was only partly right. Animal spirits in isolation do not cause the cycle. As discussed in the previous section, borrowing costs lean against mood swings in both directions. Optimism results in higher borrowing costs, countering the desire to borrow. Pessimism results in lower borrowing costs, countering the reluctance to borrow. And it is the net impact on credit flows that drives the cycle. The specific problem in the Depression was a slump in asset prices. This depressed the value of households' and firms' balance sheet assets to below the value of the liabilities - an extreme event which economist Richard Koo calls a 'balance sheet recession'. Crucially, in a balance sheet recession, no amount of borrowing cost reduction can counter the reluctance to borrow, because households' and firms' single-minded objective is to regain solvency. Hence for us, the Ricardian bank credit cycle - rather than Keynesian animal spirits - is the better explanation for the Great Depression, as well as for Japan's post-1990 bust and for the 2008-09 Great Recession. The Ricardian bank credit cycle also explains the more common and garden variety of economic fluctuations (Box I-1). Readers should review our February 2 report Slowdown: How And When? for the compelling theoretical and empirical evidence. Right now, the important message is that the global bank credit cycle is weakening. Box I-1The Mathematics Of Mini-Cycles Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar: What Should Investors Do? Many commentators and investors look at sentiment and survey data and note that animal spirits have soared. On this basis, they expect global growth to accelerate. But to reiterate, animal spirits in isolation do not cause the economic cycle. Heightened animal spirits do generate a tailwind for credit creation, but any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing generates a headwind (Chart I-6). And it is the net effect on the 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that determines the cyclical direction of the economy (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Weaken Credit Flows... Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Flows Slow The Economy Today, the hard data on bank credit in the euro area, the U.S. and China show that 6-month impulses have slumped. The risk is that this could generate an unwelcome surprise. Rather than accelerate in the coming months, global growth may level off or even decelerate. Even if it were a short-lived pause, major financial markets - including all of those in Europe - would be blindsided. The risk-on mode so far in 2017 would turn out to be incongruous. At the very least, until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and weakening credit impulses is resolved, we will lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Profitability net of borrowing cost. Fractal Trading Model* Excessive optimism in global equity prices reinforces our near-term caution towards stocks. We are expressing this through a short position in the AEX. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The end game for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Russia and their respective allies is fairly obvious: Remove enough production from the market to draw down storage and make the oil-supply curve, once again, more inelastic. This would allow these states to use forward guidance and small adjustments in production to influence prices, the sine qua non of petro-states desperate to maintain revenues and diversify away from near-complete dependence on hydrocarbon exports. We think the effort will succeed over the short run. Just how durable this pact will be remains to be seen, given oil is, once again, super-abundant. If production discipline breaks down, all bets are off. Energy: Overweight. We are now solidly positioned for backwardation in oil - long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent; these positions are up 141.6% and 68.4%, respectively. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks: We are long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017; these positions are up 7.66% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Chile's Escondida mine are back on the job, after a 44-day strike. The strike is estimated to have cost BHP Billiton some $1 billion, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold has rallied by 4.3% since the FOMC raised overnight rates. Our long volatility position - long a Jun/17 put and call spread for $21/oz - is down 30%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The long-awaited and much-anticipated USDA planting intentions report is due out tomorrow. We remain bearish, expecting an early indication stocks-to-use ratios for grains and beans will remain elevated. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing##br## Before the Year-End Production Surge KSA and Russia have to make oil supply more inelastic in order to regain some control over where prices go and, consequently, where their revenues go. Their end game is obvious - i.e., remove the excess oil production that pushed inventories to historically high levels - but their execution has been, at best, halting. Prior to KSA and Russia delivering an historic production-management Agreement at the end of last year, oil markets were well on the way to removing the storage overhang by year-end 2017, as any Econ 101 text would have suggested. Low prices following OPEC's market-share war declaration destroyed supply and lifted demand, which was drawing down stocks. This is easily seen in the Chart of the Week showing inventories beginning to head south in mid-2016. Then came the KSA - Russia Agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to cut output by some 1.8mm b/d. The goal of the deal was to accelerate the drawdown in record high storage levels. Even while the deal was being negotiated, it was apparent some producers in the know were getting a jump on shipping those last barrels out the door before they were obliged to cut. This produced the end-of-year production surge, which swelled global inventories. The year-end surge by OPEC and non-OPEC producers could be expected (Chart 2), but it came at a really bad time for the market, since 1Q17 also was when refiners took units down for maintenance. This is fairly routine, but in some key markets like the U.S. Gulf, the current maintenance season was busier than average, according to the EIA (Chart 3). This left a lot of crude in storage, as product inventories were being drawn. Chart 2Year-End Production Surge ##br##Powered The Storage Build Chart 3Maintenance Season In 1Q17 ##br##Exacerbated The Storage Build Where are we today? Most of the pre-Agreement production and export surge has been absorbed, and inventories in the U.S. are drawing a bit. Floating storage has been drained. But, in an interesting economic twist, OECD storage levels are likely to reach the targeted drawdown of 10% (300mm bbl) by year-end 2017, which is exactly what would have happened absent any action by KSA and Russia at the end of last year. It is difficult to resist reiterating that had nothing been done at the end of last year by KSA and Russia, and the market was left to do its necessary work of removing high-cost production and encouraging increased demand via lower prices, the market would have ended up in the exact same place it now finds itself. Trust But Verify Be that as it may, the really hard work of the KSA - Russia deal now begins. We expect OECD inventories to hit the 10% drawdown target by year end. However, if parties to the deal do not maintain production discipline markets will almost surely take prices lower. This could easily happen if prices start to percolate as we expect in 2Q17, and cash-strapped non-OPEC producers decide to see how far they can push KSA and its Gulf-state allies on their deal. Russia has been slow to deliver on its production commitment, while KSA has over-delivered (Chart 4). The same can be said for their respective allies (Chart 5). We believe markets will remain skittish, until evidence Russia and Iraq also are abiding by the end-2016 Agreement becomes incontrovertible. It is true Russian President Vladimir Putin personally involved himself in this deal, and helped close it on the non-OPEC side, but markets will want proof production actually is falling. Like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, markets may be willing to trust, but they certainly will want to verify compliance. Chart 4KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, ##br##Russia Is Slow To Deliver Chart 5KSA's Allies Are Delivering, ##br##Russia's Not So Much While not our base case, it is possible Russia and its fellow travelers could decide to risk keeping their production above agreed volumes under the Agreement, in the belief KSA is more in need of keeping prices above $50/bbl or so over the next 18 months, given the Kingdom wants a successful IPO of state-owned Saudi Aramco. Should this occur, markets would correct violently. At the end of the day, such a gamble likely would be ruinous for both, if it provoked KSA to abandon its commitment to keep production below 10mm b/d. Short-term goals - getting OECD storage levels down to five-year averages - would be sacrificed. Importantly, long-term goals we believe are driving KSA and Russia to cooperate in the first place, namely developing a modus operandi for containing U.S. shale-oil output, will become moot, possibly returning the market to the production free-for-all that motivated the KSA - Russia dialogue. The Quest For Relevance Chart 6Odds Favor Backwardated Markets ##br##As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Our base case envisions a successful KSA - Russia Agreement in which production discipline is maintained, and the deal produces its desired result - drawing storage down by ~ 300mm bbls. Forward curves then backwardate (Chart 6). This sets the stage for deeper discussions among KSA, Russia and their respective allies re how they can work together going forward to contain U.S. shale-oil production. In effect, the parties to this deal have a choice to make: Either they figure out a way to make room for shale, which has catapulted the U.S. to major-producer status once again, or they leave this to the market. We are fairly confident these discussions already are ongoing, and will be well advanced by year-end. Next week, we will be publishing a theoretical piece on how the KSA - Russia pact could provide a platform that allows these petro-states - which we are taking the liberty of dubbing OPEC 2.0 - to re-gain a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. In earlier research, we advanced a theory that shale rig counts are highly sensitive not only to the level of prices at the front of the curve, but to the curve shape itself. We were able to demonstrate that contango markets - i.e., prices for promptly delivered crude are less than prices for deferred delivery material - favor shale producers, and, all else equal, incentivize them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues that maximize the number of rigs they deploy.2 In backwardated markets, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. This limits the rate at which the resource can be developed. Based on these theoretical results, we believe it is in the interest of the OPEC 2.0 states to keep the WTI forward curve in backwardation, so that, at the margin, the number of rigs deployed to the shales is contained. Our research suggests that the deeper the backwardation, the slower rig counts grow. So, if the ideal price level for KSA is, as has been reported in the media, $60/bbl for Brent, then, in the best of all worlds, the Kingdom, Russia and their respective allies target spot prices at this level and use production, storage and forward guidance to backwardate the WTI curve, which is used by shale producers to hedge.3 Such a strategy has numerous risks, particularly if OPEC 2.0 cannot react quickly enough to keep prices from rising above a level that keeps shale-oil producers restricted to their core production areas. This would allow higher-cost shale reserves to be brought on line, which would raise the likelihood of lower prices, and cost OPEC 2.0 market share.4 Such a strategy also would tempt OPEC 2.0 producers to free ride, raising production at the margin to increase their revenues. This also risks lower prices. Nonetheless, we believe such a strategy could benefit both KSA and Russia and their allies, which is why it likely will at least be considered and attempted.5 KSA would be able to IPO Aramco into a relatively stable higher-price market, which would allow it to invest in additional refinery capacity in Asia and elsewhere, and in alternative-energy resources like solar, to free up oil for export. Russia also is better off keeping prices at a level at which its economy can continue to work on diversifying its exposure away from its heavy dependence on oil and gas exports.6 We will present more of our thinking on this next week. In the meantime, we highly recommend BCA clients read Matt Conlan's article in this week's Energy Sector Strategy entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery."7 This is an excellent analysis of shale-oil economics. Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude and products storage to draw as production cuts become apparent and refiners bring units back up off maintenance. This will backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves. Based on our high level of conviction in this outcome, we added a long Brent Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent position to our recommended trades, along with a similar WTI position. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks, by being long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017. We continue to expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 and for WTI prices to trade most of the time between $45/bbl and $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, we expect the spread between Brent and WTI prices to average $1.50/bbl (Brent over). Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Escondida outcome seen as disaster for BHP as workers return," published by Reuters.com on March 24, 2017. 2 We introduced this line of research in our February 16, 2017, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We continue to delve into this topic, and will be presenting out latest thinking next week. 3 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters February 28, 2017. Russia's budgeting assumption for 2017 to 2019 is $40/bbl, according to a Bloomberg report from March 24, 2017, entitled "OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40." 4 It is not in KSA's, Russia's or their allies' interests to kill off shale production. The more-than-$1 trillion of capex for projects that would have been developed between 2015 and 2020, and would have translated into some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production will not be available to the market beginning later this decade. As we have noted, an enormous burden will be placed on shale production, Gulf OPEC producers and Russia to meet growing demand later this decade. 5 We also would note this would be a boon to long-only commodity index investors, whose returns are driven by roll yields that only exist in backwardated markets. More on that in subsequent research as well. 6 Russia's exports are dominated by oil and gas, while KSA's are dominated by crude oil and, increasingly, refined products. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calculated close to 70% of Russia's economy is dependent on revenue from hydrocarbons - production, trade, investments in non-oil industries funded by oil revenues, and consumption made possible via oil and gas production and sales. We discuss this at length in the September 8, 2016, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." 7 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery," This article was published March 29, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Bank Credit Analyst

This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and the so-called 'Trump trades' going into reverse. Equity valuation is stretched and plenty of risks remain. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. The economic data remain constructive for profits in the major countries. The risks posed by upcoming European elections have eased for 2017, now that the Italian election appears unlikely until 2018. The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. If a tax reform package proves too difficult to pass, then the GOP will settle for straight tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending. Market reaction to the FOMC's 'dovish hike' was overdone. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce a further tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. In Japan, the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar, and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations. This reflects falling perceptions of downside "tail risk", which is reflected in a declining equity risk premium (ERP). Absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside risk should continue to wane, allowing risk premia and asset correlations to ease further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. The only adjustment to asset allocation we are making this month is an upgrade for U.S. high-yield based on improved valuation. Feature The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and a number of popular trades going into reverse. First, the failure to replace Obamacare triggered a pull-back of the so-called 'Trump trades.' Stock indexes are holding up well, but the U.S. dollar has given back most of the gains made in March and the 10-year Treasury yield has dropped back to the bottom of the post-U.S. election trading range. Moreover, the negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and risk assets has flipped (Chart I-1). Even oil prices have diverged from their usual negative trading relationship with the dollar. Second, investors are questioning the FOMC's appetite for rate hikes in the coming months. They are also wondering how much longer the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) can maintain current hyper-stimulative policy settings. The whole narrative regarding equity strength, a dollar overshoot and bond price weakness may be over if there is not going to be any fiscal stimulus in the U.S., the Fed is not going to hike more aggressively than the market currently expects, and monetary policy is near a turning point in Japan and the Eurozone. Is it time for investors to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar? We believe the answer is 'not yet', although 2017 was always destined to be a rough ride given the ups-and-downs in the U.S. legislative process and the lineup of European elections. President Trump's first 100 days are turning out to be even more tumultuous than many expected. Allegations of wiretaps and the FBI investigation into the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election are costing the President political capital, as well as raising question marks over the Republican Party's wish list. Simply removing the possibility of corporate tax cuts would justify a healthy haircut on the S&P 500. The political situation has admittedly become more complicated, but our geopolitical team makes the following observations: The GOP base supports Trump: Until the mid-term elections, Trump's popularity with Republican voters remains strong, which means that the President still has political capital (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Changing Correlations Chart I-2Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet Republicans want tax reform: Even if reform gets bogged down, there is broad support for cutting taxes at a minimum. Many deficit hawks appear willing to use the magic of "dynamic scoring" to justify tax cuts as revenue-neutral. Even the chairman of the Freedom Caucus has signaled that he is open to tax reform that is not revenue neutral. Tax reform not conditional on Obamacare: The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. The Republicans will need to show success on at least one of their signature platforms before heading into the mid-term elections. The prospective savings from Obamacare's repeal are not needed to "fund" tax cuts. Infrastructure: We still expect that President Trump will get his way on additional spending on defense, veterans, infrastructure and the wall. The tax reform process will undoubtedly be full of drama and may be stretched out, adding volatility to the equity market. Our base case is that some sort of tax reform and infrastructure package will be passed by year end. However, if a reform package proves too difficult to pass, then we believe that the GOP will settle for straight-forward tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending (please see Table I-1 in the March 2017 monthly Bank Credit Analyst for the probabilities we have attached to the various GOP proposals). Tax cuts and increased spending will be positive for risk assets. The caveat is that we see little change in Trump's commitment to mercantilism. This means he will lean toward backing the border tax or tariff increases, which will offset some of the benefits for risk assets from reduced tax rates. Excess Reaction To FOMC Chart I-3FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Given the uncertainty on the fiscal side, one can't blame the FOMC for taking a "wait and see" approach. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00% at the March meeting, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50 bps of tightening is expected by the Committee this year, with 75 bps expected in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-3). The FOMC signaled in March that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot,' sparking a rally in bond prices and a pullback in the dollar. This market reaction seemed excessive in our view. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Is The Dollar Bull Over? Still, recent market action suggests that the dollar may not get a lift from future Fed rate hikes because the outlook for global growth outside of the U.S. is brightening. Moreover, it could be that monetary policy in the Eurozone and Japan is at a turning point. There is increasing speculation that the ECB will have to taper the quantitative easing program sooner than planned. Some are even speculating the ECB will lift rates this year. The recent economic data for the euro area have indeed been stellar. The composite PMI surged to 56.7 in March, with the forward-looking new orders components hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart I-4). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. With unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a consensus view on the ECB policy committee. The Bundesbank has been quite vocal on this issue, especially given that Eurozone headline HICP inflation reached 2% in February. The core rate of inflation remains close to 1%, but the rising diffusion index suggests that budding inflation pressure is becoming more broadly based (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Solid Eurozone Economic Data Chart I-5Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently compared the current economic situation to that of the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum."1 In Chart I-6, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for the Euro Area and U.S. In the Euro Area, the number of months to the first rate hike discounted in money markets peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, this indicator has converged with the U.S. path. There is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases. Nonetheless, the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce another tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. We do not believe that the ECB will raise short-term interest rates before it starts the tapering process. A rate hike would result in a stronger euro, downward pressure on inflation, and an unwanted tightening in financial conditions that would threaten the current economic impulse. This means that, between now and September, the window is still open for U.S./Eurozone interest rate spreads to move further in favor of the dollar. The European election calendar remains a risk to our view on currencies and risk assets. Widening OAT/Bund yield spreads highlight that investors remain concerned that the French election will follow last year's populist script in the U.K. and the U.S. However, our geopolitical team believes that Le Pen is unlikely to win since she trails in the polls by a 25-30% margin relative to Macron, her most likely opponent. Even if she were to pull off a win, she will not hold the balance of power in the National Assembly. Over in Germany, where the election is heating up, the fact that the Europhile SPD party is gaining in the polls means that the September vote is unlikely to be a speed bump for financial markets. The real political risk lies in Italy. While the election has been pushed off to February 2018, it appears that there will be genuine fireworks at that time because Euroskeptic parties have seized the lead in the polls (Chart I-7). In the meantime, European elections will be a source of volatility, but investors should ride it out until we get closer to the Italian election. Chart I-6Less Spare Capacity In Europe ##br##Now Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Chart I-7Italian Elections: The Big Risk Japanese Yield Cap To Hold Chart I-8Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Similar to our view on the ECB, we do not believe that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be in a position to begin removing monetary accommodation anytime soon. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well (Chart I-8). This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Admittedly, however, the next major move in global yields may not occur until the autumn when the ECB takes a less dovish tone. In the meantime, our fixed-income strategists remain underweight Treasurys within global currency-hedged portfolios. The team recently upgraded (low beta) JGBs to overweight at the expense of core European government bonds, which move to benchmark. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Chart I-9Market Correlations Are Shifting Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, a trend that began before the U.S. election (Chart I-9). Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification. Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart I-10). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.2 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart I-11). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? Chart I-10Market Correlation And The ERP Chart I-11Modeling The Stock ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.3 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending Chart I-12Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.4 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart I-12). J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.5 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list, as highlighted in this month's Special Report on Brexit's implication for Scotland independence, beginning on page 19. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart I-13). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets where value is less stretched, such as the euro area and Japan, over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Europe is about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. index, although the extra value in the Japanese market has dissipated recently (Chart I-14). Moreover, both Eurozone and Japanese stocks in local currency terms will benefit from weaker currencies in the coming months, as rising inflation expectations and stable nominal interest rates result in declining in real rates, at least relative to the U.S. Chart I-13Forward Multiple Scenarios Chart I-14Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Conclusion We have reassessed our asset allocation given that several market calls have gone against us over the past month. However, three key views argue to stay the course for now: Recent economic data support our view that a synchronized global acceleration is underway. This is highlighted by an update of the real GDP growth models we introduced last month (Chart I-15). The implication is that earnings growth will be constructive for stocks; Tax reform is still likely to be passed this year in the U.S. Moreover, were a broad tax reform package to elude the Administration, the fallback position will involve (stimulative) tax cuts, some infrastructure spending and de-regulation; and The FOMC will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, while the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan will maintain extremely accommodative monetary policy at least into the fall. The result is that stocks will outperform cash and bonds, while the dollar still has another 10% upside potential. The only adjustment we are making this month is in the U.S. high-yield corporate bond allocation. According to our fixed-income strategists, value has improved enough that it is worth upgrading the sector to overweight at the expense of Treasurys. Some of the indicators that comprise our default rate model have become more constructive for credit risk, including lending standards, the PMIs and profits. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default rate outlook have resulted in a widening in our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread to 219 basis points (Chart I-16). Historically, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 81% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 200 and 250 basis points. Chart I-15GDP Models Are Bullish Chart I-16Upgrade U.S. High Yield Turning to oil markets, we expect recent price weakness to reverse despite dollar strength. Building inventories have weighed on crude, but this is a head fake according to our commodity experts. We expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage volumes this year, now that the year-end surge on crude product from OPEC's Gulf producers has been fully absorbed. With global supply/demand fundamentals now dominating price movements, the recent breakdown in the inverse correlation between oil prices and the dollar should persist. Oil prices will rise back toward the US$55 range that we believe will be the central tendency over 2016 and 2017. Risks are to the upside. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Shift to benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and upgrade JGBs to overweight within currency-hedged portfolios. The U.S. remains at underweight. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks over bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues in the U.S.; upgrade U.S. high-yield to overweight, but downgrade European investment-grade to underweight due to fading support from the ECB. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. Favor oil to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 30, 2017 Next Report: April 27, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?" dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 3 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 4 Are Firms Underinvesting - and if so why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 5 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016. II. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs ##br##Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots ##br##Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: ##br##Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish ##br##Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No ##br##Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 index has pulled back from its recent highs, but it has not corrected enough to 'move the dial' in terms of the valuation or technical indicators. Stocks remain expensive based on our valuation index made up of 11 different measures. The technical indicator is still bullish. Our equity monetary indicator has dropped back to the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. The speculation index is elevated, however, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our composite sentiment index and the low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. Net earnings revisions remain close to the zero mark, although it is somewhat worrying that the earnings surprises index is slowly deteriorating. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. However, the widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking ahead, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. The composite technical indicator for the 10-year Treasury shows that oversold conditions are unwinding, although the indicator is not yet back to zero. This suggests that the consolidation period for bonds is not yet complete. Oversold conditions are almost completely gone in terms of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. We believe the dollar has more upside. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. However, we are only bullish on oil at the moment. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Special Report

Highlights A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. We are tactically short EUR/GBP and USD/GBP. Feature "For who is it that would not prefer the greatest Hardships attended with Liberty, to a State that deprived him of all means to defend himself against the Oppressions that must inevitably follow [the Union of the two Crowns]." "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the “Great Repeal Bill” that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the “Phoney War” has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart 1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart 2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets pretty much called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart 3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart 1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart 2...Is Looking More Likely Chart 3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, it is "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss the ways in which Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "The End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession especially drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland opposed the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. The fiscal deficit, in 2014, would have been 5.9% of GDP and the national debt would have been 109% of GDP - now those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively (Table 1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart 4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. Table 1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Chart 4Highly Financialized Societies For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart 5). Brexit indeed does mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart 5Three Cheers For Brexit & The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that it would call for a new independence vote in case of "a significant or material change" in Scotland's constitutional circumstances - a clear hint at Brexit. Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart 6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart 7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart 6Immigration Curbs Threaten Scots Growth Chart 7Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart 8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart 9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. Chart 8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart 9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart 10). Chart 10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Chart 11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart 11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart 12). Chart 12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts 13 and 14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Chart 13Irish Independence: Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart 14Scotland: If The Irish Can Do It So Can We Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart 15). Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart 16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart 17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while the elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart 15EU Market No Substitute For British Market Chart 16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart 17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart 18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart 19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart 18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart 19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, but Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart 5, page 5). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the Common Market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the Common Market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. We have been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down only 1.96%, suggesting that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. On the other hand, our short EUR/GBP trade may be threatened by a potential surge in bullish euro sentiment as French election risks abate and the ECB threatens hawkish rhetoric. We have just gone long EUR/USD on a three-to-six month basis for these reasons. As such, we would suggest that clients go short USD/GBP instead. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer these currency trades as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also works against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea are here to stay; China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that tries to roll back its control; U.S. advantages in the region are significant, but declining and overrated. We put together a portfolio of stocks that give investors exposure to the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea. Dear Client, Today's Special Report is jointly authored by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy services and focuses on the tail risks around the South China Sea conflict. In this report, our colleagues Matt Gertken of the Geopolitical Strategy and Oleg Babanov of the Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors. At the end of the report, we provide detailed investment recommendations for both EM-dedicated as well as global investors. Kindest Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President EM Equity Sector Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years ... There's no doubt about that." - Steve Bannon, prior to becoming President Donald Trump's Chief Strategist, Breitbart News, March 2016 The South China Sea is a headline grabber that has failed to produce any market-disruptions despite years of rising tensions. In fact, it would appear that the issue has been relegated to the backburner, with the Trump administration laying off its earlier aggressive rhetoric and America's Asian allies focusing on building a trade relationship with China. Compared to the Koreas, in particular, where geopolitical risk is spiking due to political turmoil in the South and weapons advances in the North, the South China Sea seems relatively calm.1 We are not so sanguine, however, and advise investors to take the tail-risk of a conflict in the South China Sea seriously. First, there has been a general "rotation" of global geopolitical risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, as BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has chronicled over the years.2 China's transformation into a "peer" or "near-peer" competitor to the United States, and the U.S.'s various reactions, are transforming the region and sowing the seeds of a new Cold War. Second, despite a thaw in the relationship between China and the Trump Administration, the latest positive signals have not extended to the South China Sea.3 In North Korea, China is offering to enforce sanctions. In Taiwan, Trump has backed away from hints of encouraging independence. But in the South China Sea, the two sides have increased activity even as they have made reassuring statements.4 Third, fact remains that despite headline grabbers, China has managed to expand its military installations in the region over the past half-decade and now possesses a layered-defense system in the region. In this report, we ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors, particularly EM-dedicated investors, on the sectoral level. We find that China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that should try to roll back its control of the disputed islands. We also do not think that the U.S. is ready to accept this new Chinese "sphere of influence." This means that the two countries are in a "gray zone" in which policy mistakes could occur. This uncertainty is driving the odds of a crisis higher. China is flush with recent victories in the islands, and yet the United States will continue to insist on free passage and the defense of allies and partners. Nationalism and rising jingoism in both countries also raises the odds of misunderstanding and miscalculation. Until the Trump and Xi administrations agree to a robust strategic deal that arranges for de-escalation, the South China Sea will remain a source of low-probability, high-impact geopolitical risk for investors. It is only one aspect of a broader deterioration in U.S.-China relations that we see as the ultimate driver of a secular rise in geopolitical risk in Asia Pacific.5 Unfortunately, history also teaches us that such "strategic resets" are normally motivated by a dramatic crisis. At the end of this report, we provide investment recommendations for investors in emerging markets (and a couple for the U.S. as well). Why Not Ignore The South China Sea? Map 1Nine-Dash Line Reaches Far Beyond China Maritime territorial disputes between China and several of its neighbors - Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and partly Indonesia - have a long history. China declared its "Nine Dash Line," an expansionist claim of sovereignty over almost the entirety of the sea, in 1947 (Map 1). Since then, conflicts have flared up sporadically. The most notable skirmishes illustrate that the maritime disputes are always simmering but tend to boil over only when larger geopolitical issues heat up.6 Since the 1990s, China and the other claimants have raced to "grab what they can," particularly in the Spratly Islands. However, conflicts have especially intensified since the mid-2000s (Charts 1 and 2). A major factor has been the rise in competition for subsea resources: Chart 1Territorialism Rising In South China Chart 2Rising Number Of Confrontations Energy and minerals - Although estimates vary widely, the South China Sea contains respectable reserves of oil and natural gas (Chart 3) and there are also hopes of extracting other minerals from the sea floor. Most of the region's states are net importers. Several conflicts have been sparked by exploration, test drilling, and unilateral development.7 It is a fact that the past decade's buildup in tensions has coincided with a global bull market for energy prices and offshore energy investment and capex (Chart 4). Chart 3Not Insignificant Reserves Of Oil And Gas In South China Sea Fishing Grounds - The South China Sea holds vast fish resources, a source of food security, exports, and jobs for littoral countries. It is estimated that over 10% of global fishing catches come from here. Fishing as a whole accounts for about 1-3% of GDP for the countries involved in the disputes (Chart 5), and the South China Sea is a large chunk of that. A quick glance at recent skirmishes reveals that fishing rights are a major cause of conflict (Table 1). Chart 4Offshore Oil Production In Decline Chart 5Fisheries Non-Negligible For Asian States Table 1Notable Incidents In The South China Sea (2010-16) Nevertheless, resource extraction is not the main driver of discord. Frictions spiked in 2015-16 despite the collapse in China's and other countries' offshore rig counts (Chart 6). And fishing rights are also clearly a pretext for attempts to assert control over waters and rocks.8 Chart 6Energy Interest Declining, Tensions Still Elevated Moreover, China's conversion of the sea's various geographical features into artificial islands through a process of land reclamation, and its construction of military facilities and stationing of armaments on these islands, points not to strictly economic interests but to broader strategic security interests. Similarly, the United States' enforcement of international rights of free navigation and overflight is not related to oil and fish. What is really at stake is national security, supply-line control, and international prestige. First, the United States has long executed a grand strategy of preventing any country from forming a regional empire and denying the U.S. access. China has the long-term potential to make this happen, and the South China Sea is its earliest foray into empire-building abroad. (Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet are all old news and expand Chinese hegemony into the largely useless Eurasian hinterland.) Second, the main global trading lines from Eurasia and Africa to and from Asia mostly go through the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. We illustrate this process through our diagram of the sea as a large traffic roundabout (Diagram 1). China is attempting to control the centerpiece of the roundabout, which - in combination with China's southern mainland forces - would eventually give it veto power over transit. Diagram 1South China Sea As A Vital Supply Roundabout The economic value of the trade potentially affected by power struggles is what makes this all highly market relevant if a full-blown war ever occurs. We estimate that roughly $4.8 trillion worth of trade flowed through this area in 2015, which is comparable to the $5.3 trillion estimate from 2012 frequently cited in news media.9 Moreover, the trade does not consist merely of manufactured goods from Asian manufacturing centers but also basic commodities vital to the Asian countries' economic and political stability. Essential commodities account for about 20-35% of Northeast and Southeast Asian imports, and almost all of this by definition flows through the South China Sea (Charts 7 and 8). Chart 7Commodity Imports Go Through South China Sea... Chart 8...And Greatly Affect Asian Economies The numbers belie how vital the supply lanes are for individual countries: Japan, for instance, gets 80% of its oil via the South China Sea. A total cutoff would be devastating after strategic reserves were exhausted; and even a marginal hindrance of energy imports would bite into the current account surpluses that grease the wheels of high-debt Asian economies. The South China Sea is therefore vital even to countries like Japan and South Korea that are not party to the maritime-territorial disputes. A commerce-destroying war could strangle their economies. Military access is another reason states seek control. This is separate but related to the need to secure economic supplies. Chinese military planners are clear that they want to be able to deny access to foreign powers if need be, in order to secure the southern half of the country, or cut off Taiwan's or Japan's supply lines. American military planners are equally clear that they will not allow a state to deny them access to international commons, or to coerce others through supply-lane control.10 Finally, there are political and legal aspects to the South China Sea disputes. China's successful alteration of the status quo in the face of opposition from the U.S., Asian neighbors, and a high-profile international tribunal (the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague), has undermined international legal institutions and the U.S. prestige in the region. Over time, regional states, perceiving that "might makes right," may feel the need to cling more closely to China or the U.S., giving rise to proxy battles.11 With supply security and national defense at risk - and China in the process of "militarizing" the islands - there is a rising probability of a major "Black Swan" incident. The involvement of a number of major powers and minor allies means that a small incident could escalate into something significant. The friction between U.S. global dominance and China's rising regional sway is the chief source of instability. China could agree to a "Code of Conduct" with the Asian states possibly as early as this year. But without improvement in U.S.-China relations, the geopolitical consequences of such a code will be moot. Southeast Asian risk assets could benefit temporarily, but the chief tail-risks of the U.S. and China falling out would be unresolved. Bottom Line: He who controls the sea routes controls the traffic. China has made an overt bid for the ability to govern the sea routes and deny foreign powers access to the sea. The U.S. has threatened forceful responses to acts of "area-denial" or military coercion. Thus, geopolitical uncertainty and risks in the region remain elevated. How Do The Contenders Size Up? If China had clearly achieved full control of the waterways, airways, and geographical features of the South China Sea, then geopolitical risk over the area might decline. Countries would adjust to Beijing's rules of the game and the region would enter a period of hegemonic stability. The reason we are in a gray area today is that China has not yet reached dominance. China's advantages are significant, growing rapidly, and underrated; meanwhile the U.S.'s advantages are significant, declining, and overrated. A simple comparison of the U.S.'s and China's military advantages and disadvantages will make this clear. China Considering that the South China Sea is China's backyard, the country has a major advantage of playing on its "home court" versus the United States. China can afford to concentrate its military capabilities and planning specifically on its near seas, whereas American resources are dispersed globally and reduced to an "expeditionary force" when operating in China's neighborhood.12 Even so, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Navy (PLAN), and Air Force (PLAAF) have major obstacles to overcome if they are to contend with American forces. Until relatively recently, China's defense buildup focused on traditional ground capabilities, creating weak spots in its ability to project military power over the South China Sea. What matters is whether China has addressed these shortfalls sufficiently to raise the costs of U.S. intervention to a prohibitive level. So far, it is attempting to do so in the following ways: Sea Power - China's naval capabilities have generally lagged far behind those of the U.S. and Japan. An important step was the commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. It is a renovated Soviet carrier of the type that Russia has recently used in Syria. A second carrier, Shandong, is 85% complete and set to be commissioned in 2018 - it is an indigenously produced copy of the former. It is set to be stationed in Hainan, which will influence the balance of power given that the U.S. only has one carrier permanently in the region (though several more dock in San Diego). A third carrier is slated for 2022 and expected to be stationed in the South China Sea. The navy has also significantly increased China's logistic and support capabilities in the area, with amphibious warships and air cover. China has also vastly expanded its destroyers and smaller ships. Only its submarine capabilities face serious doubts about the degree of improvement and capability. Air Transport - China's naval and air force lifting capabilities, necessary to transport troops and equipment quickly to disputed territories, were initially very limited. But in recent years, China has improved these capabilities. Considering satellite pictures of the Spratly and Paracel Islands with new hangars and landing strips, China has made considerable progress toward the goal of quick material and troop supply for the islands. Of course, it is notoriously difficult to resupply small scattered islands amid enemy disruptions, but it is also difficult to disrupt without committing more than one aircraft carrier wing to the problem. Clearly China's capacity has improved. Infrastructure - China has converted Hainan, its southernmost island (and smallest province) into a major military and logistics base. Its new Yulin Naval Base can host up to 20 nuclear submarines as well as two carrier groups and several assault ships. This is China's "Pearl Harbor," and unlike the American version, it is in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, on the disputed islands, China had not built infrastructure until very recently. It was in fact the last of the island claimants to pave an airstrip. But its construction has been bigger, faster, and more ambitious - including for air transport, fighter jets, and surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, all of which have added greatly to its ability to deny the U.S. access to the sea. Air Power - One of the main issues the PLAAF had over the years was the limited radius of its fighter planes, which would not allow full air superiority in the South China Sea. Airfield infrastructure was built on the disputed islands so that fighter planes could be stationed closer to the area. China therefore does not possess just one aircraft carrier, but rather numerous ones if we think of islands as aircraft carriers. Also, Russia is delivering to China a number of multirole fighters that can cover the South China Sea from bases on the mainland. And China's fifth-generation fighter is coming along. By far the most significant military development in China's arsenal, however, is its development of short- and medium-range missiles. This development greatly increases the danger to American ships and aircraft seeking access to the region. First, China has concentrated on building short-range, DF-21D "Carrier Killer" anti-ship missiles, which pack enough punch to take out an American aircraft carrier with one hit, and which the U.S. has limited means to defend against.13 China has also paraded around the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, or "Guam Killer," which can reach as far as Guam, can carry a nuclear charge, and has a mobile launch platform that would be difficult for U.S. forces to detect and knock out before the launch. In turn, the U.S. has deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems in Guam and South Korea in preparation for precisely this kind of attack.14 Second, China has amassed around 500 surface-to-air missiles on Hainan Island, waiting to be shipped to the disputed rocks. The armory consists of a combination of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles to create a layered air-defense perimeter. Satellite images of the islands show that China has also positioned short-range and medium-range missile systems on some of the islands, namely Woody Island in the Paracels. Finally, China has fielded better radar systems to gain full coverage of the South China Sea (as well as other nearby waters) in order to find or guide friendly or hostile ships or planes and to support the various activities of its air and ship defenses. This combination of radar and missile capabilities amounts to a game changer. They make it possible for China to raise the costs of conflict to such a level that the United States might balk. Will the U.S. seek to change the balance of power with force? No. But Washington has reaffirmed its "red lines" in the region, namely freedom of passage. This was the takeaway from Secretary of Defense James Mattis's first foreign trip, not incidentally to Japan and South Korea. Mattis indicated that freedom of passage is "absolute" not only for the U.S. merchant fleet but also for the navy. However, he also said the U.S. will exhaust "diplomatic efforts" and eschew "any dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea, while maintaining the U.S.'s neutrality on sovereignty disputes. This is status quo, and the status quo favors China's rapidly growing ability to deny others' access to the area. The United States The U.S. has several bases in the Indo-Pacific area, with ground, air, naval, and marine assets. It also has extensive experience conducting wars and special operations in East Asia. Yet despite this dispersed and historic basing, China poses a challenge the likes of which it has not seen in the region. The distances to be covered, the complexities of the logistics, and China's growing strengths, make any U.S. intervention in the South China Sea harder than is typically assumed. The U.S.'s key five bases make these advantages and disadvantages clear: Guam, with almost 6,000 troops, will most likely be the first base to respond to a threat in the South China Sea, or to become engaged in a conflict there. It hosts part of the Seventh Fleet, including a ballistic-missile submarine squadron. It would be a key launch pad for regional operations. It could also be an early target for China's long-range ballistic missiles in a major conflict. Guam sits almost 3,000km from the South China Sea. South Korea hosts one of the U.S.'s oldest and largest regional deployments, with about 28,000 troops. Korea hosts the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force, as well as Special Operations Command Korea. Its chief advantage is its proximity to China. However, assuming a conflict involves no direct engagement with mainland China, Korea comes with some disadvantages. Most of the ground staff is located around the North Korea border. The U.S. command in the region will be wary of lifting troops from the border and exposing its northern flank. North Korea (or conceivably China itself) could take advantage of U.S. distraction in the South China Sea. At the same time, the operational radius of planes on the Osan Air Base would not allow direct engagement in the South China Sea, though they could cover the southeast to hinder any maneuvers of the Chinese air force. Japan is the United States' largest overseas deployment with about 49,000 troops - heavily tilted toward naval and air power. The Fifth U.S. Air Force is spread across three main bases in Misawa, Yokota, and Kadena, while the Seventh Fleet is the largest forward-deployed U.S. fleet. It has several powerful task forces including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and naval special warfare, amphibious assault, mine warfare, and marine expeditionary forces. The strong presence and firepower of this fleet as well as its maneuverability make it the prime candidate for any sort of engagement in the South China Sea (or East China Sea for that matter). The air bases around Tokyo and Okinawa can provide air support down to Taiwan and run airlift operations down to China's Hainan Island, the base of China's southern fleet. The only disadvantages stem from vulnerability to layered air defense and long supply lines for the navy, which will become targets after any lengthy engagement. Moreover, U.S. Forces Japan lack large ground units to organize landing operations, which will need to be sourced from South Korea or Hawaii. Hawaii is the home of the U.S. Pacific Command, which oversees regional forces, and contains sizable ground units to reinforce regional bases. It hosts the U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor (with a second base in San Diego). Hawaii has a large ground troop presence, which, together with U.S. air-lift capabilities, would provide the main ground forces for offensive operations. The large fleet secures U.S. presence in the region. Hawaii would host and resupply the core of any naval operations in the South China Sea. The only disadvantage is geographic: the distance to any U.S. ally's territory is significant, and main operational areas in the South China Sea cannot be reached in a single lift. This means that troop and equipment movement will take time and will not go unmolested. In any scenario involving land operations, the redeployment of troops will give the other side time to prepare. Alaska is also worth mention as it houses infantry brigades and air force combat units, albeit no significant naval presence. We only give small consideration to the base here because of its proximity to Russia. Assuming the neutrality of Russia during a hypothetical conflict, the U.S. would still be unlikely to draw resources from Alaska to aid operations in the South China Sea, since that would leave its own territory exposed to some degree. Other Allied Bases - We do not feature other allied bases in the region mainly because of the small numbers of troops that can be deployed and the low capabilities of U.S. allies. Some countries, such a Singapore, which has a respectably army, could disappoint the U.S. by trying to remain neutral. The most reliable help would come from Japan and Australia, but even Australia would face a very intense internal dilemma as a result of its economic dependency on China. South Korea would also be preoccupied with North Korea's ability to take advantage. A quick survey of the "order of battle" of the U.S. and China in the region would make our assertion that China has gained supremacy laughable. Then again, geopolitics does not work in ceteris paribus terms. Yes, the U.S. maintains military hegemony in the region, but China's abilities to impose real pain on American naval forces creates a complicated political dilemma for the U.S.: is Washington prepared to expend blood and treasure to defend allies and their supply lines in case of a conflict over this area? China is not yet looking to project power globally. It is not actively trying to compete for supremacy with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, or Caribbean Sea. As such, it can concentrate its forces in the South and East China Seas and dedicate its entire naval strategy to the sole purpose of denying the U.S. navy access there. The U.S., meanwhile, has to plan for a global confrontation and then dedicate a portion of its forces to China's home court. Japan may very well hold the balance of power in a potential conflict over the region. Its import dependency is at the core of its national psyche and it would view a Chinese blockade of the South China Sea as an existential threat - not unlike the American threat of oil embargo that precipitated war in the early 1940s. Japan is not likely to go rogue, but it would be a tremendous addition to the American effort, even in a situation where other states refrained from action out of fear. However, while China will see the above as a reason not to initiate armed conflict with the United States, it will not be able to retrench in the South China Sea in the face of domestic nationalism either. These pressures virtually ensure that it is locked into the assertive foreign policy it has pursued over the past ten years. Bottom Line: A simple analysis of the current disposition shows that the military capabilities of the two countries - in this limited theater - are not as disparate as one might think. Both sides have weaknesses: the U.S. is bound to a handful of distant bases and has a global range of obligations and constraints, while China lacks technology, experience, and cooperation among its military branches. Nevertheless, China is approaching full air and sea cover of the area within the Nine Dash Line (Map 1) and is rapidly gaining greater ability through radar and missiles to inflict politically unacceptable damage on the U.S. The U.S.'s interest in the South China Sea is ultimately limited to free passage and the defense of treaty allies. The Trump administration is primed to strengthen the country's rights and deterrence, namely through a large increase in defense spending that focuses heavily on the navy - aiming at a 600-ship fleet - and likely on Asia Pacific. In the context of a massive new assertion of U.S. regional presence and power, it is significant that China has not yet given any concrete indication of slowing down its island reclamation, militarization, or control techniques. Investment Implications BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning clients of the rising risks in the South China Sea, and East China in general, since 2012. However, it has been a challenge to construct an investment strategy based on our view. For starters, it is unclear when the crisis could emerge. It is difficult to know when accidents and miscalculations will happen. What we can say with some degree of certainty, however, is that the window of opportunity for any realistic campaign to reverse the militarization of the disputed islands will probably be closed by the end of this year. By "realistic," we mean operations that would promise control over the disputed territory with a calculated degree of risk and an acceptable degree of casualties. At the same time, the U.S. still has the ability to win a full-blown war with China. We have not addressed scenarios like cutting off China's oil supplies at the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, but have limited our discussion to a conflict in the South China Sea over control of the newly militarized islands. In that context, the American threshold for pain is low and its military advantages are narrowing. We are therefore entering a danger zone now because both China and the U.S. stand at risk of becoming overly assertive in the near future: Chart 9Will Trump Seek Political Recapitalization Via Conflict? China because it has domestic nationalist pressures that the Communist Party needs to vent as the economy slows; The U.S. because it has an unpopular (Chart 9), nationalist leadership that seeks to increase its defense presence in the region and may fall to brinkmanship in order to extract major trade concessions from Beijing. The tail-risk in the South China Sea suggests that global investors should also continue to hedge their exposure to risk assets with exposure to safe-haven assets receptive to geopolitical risk, like gold, Swiss bonds, though perhaps not U.S. Treasuries. The persistence of Sino-American distrust - beyond whatever happy encounter Trump and Xi may have at Mar-a-Lago in April - suggests that Chinese economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated and global financial volatility to rise. U.S.-China tension also feeds our broader narrative of rising mercantilism and protectionism. Investors will want to overweight domestic-oriented economies, consumer-oriented sectors, and small cap companies relative to their export-oriented, manufacturing, and large cap counterparts. We also recommend that EM-dedicated investors be wary about Asian states caught in the middle of de-globalization and vulnerable to geopolitical tail-risks. We are neutral to bearish on South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Our long Vietnam equities trade has been downgraded to tactical. We prefer Thailand and Japan, U.S. allies that are removed from conflict zones (Thailand) or domestically oriented and reflationary (Japan). We are also long China relative to Hong Kong and Taiwan, given the risks of both de-globalization and Chinese political troubles for the latter two. We are bullish on U.S. defense stocks.15 The U.S. defense establishment is conducting extensive reviews of the navy's force structure and future strategic needs - the fleet peaked in 1987 and fell below 300 battle force ships in 2003, but has projected that 355 battle force ships is necessary. This would require a major injection of funds in the coming decade. The Trump administration has endorsed this assessment in principle and is planning a significant increase in defense spending, marked by a requested increase of $50 billion in his first annual budget. Trump has signaled that defense manufacturing, notably shipbuilding, will be one of the ways in which he seeks to boost American manufacturing and jobs. This plays to his blue-collar base of support and could move the needle in battleground states like Virginia. It should be beneficial on the margin for U.S. defense companies.16 Below are our corporate-level recommendations for both EM-dedicated and global investors. The Companies Given the likelihood that tensions in the SCS will continue, and the projected build up in defense spending in both the U.S. and China, EMES recommends investors look to take exposure to defense stocks. We have put together a portfolio of such stocks that is intended to give exposure to the developments between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea. We recommend the following basket of companies: AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). The basket consists of four Chinese defense companies, mostly centered around the aviation industry. The choice of listed companies in China is constrained and hence we have been forced to gain exposure through aviation companies rather than naval. We recommend two companies in the U.S. that are involved in military vessel production for the U.S. Navy. We believe that the main ramp-up in defense spending from the U.S. side will come through a significant increase in the number of ships in the Asian region. Chart 10Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AviChina Vs. MSCI EM AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK): Chinese aviation holding company (Chart 10). AviChina is the listed subsidiary of the government-controlled Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). Airbus is another large shareholder, with over 11% of the free float. The company produces dual-purpose aircraft - civil and military -- including helicopters, trainers, parts and components (including radio-electronic), avionics and electrical products and components. AviChina itself is a holding company with a rather complicated structure, which makes it difficult for investors to access its market value. Listed subsidiaries include AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH), China Avionics (600372 CH), AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH) and Hongdu Aviation (600316 CH). In terms of the revenue stream, 49% is generated from whole aircraft production, 28% from engineering services and another 23% from parts and components manufacturing. The company reports semi-annual results. The latest full-year report released on March 15 came out mixed. Revenues were strong, up 39% year over year, but costs accelerated at a faster pace (+45% year over year). Operating income was still strong, growing 12.3% year over year, but margins declined across the board. EBITDA margin contracted by 257 basis points to 9.94%, while operating margin fell by 170 basis points to 7.32%. Despite this, the bottom line still managed to grow by 18.75% year over year. AviChina is currently trading at a forward P/E of 21.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 9.5% for the next three years. Chart 11Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Jonhon Optronic Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH): Profiting from growing military and EV spending (Chart 11). A subsidiary of AVIC and AviChina, the company specializes in production of optical and electric connectors (third largest in China), and cable components. Jonhon is unrivalled in the defense market. It profits from rising electronic content and from supplying major components to other parts of the AVIC group, shipbuilders, railways and aerospace. It is also successfully developing its civil offering, specifically for the fast-growing electric vehicle market and the 4G space in the telecoms industry. Looking at the revenue composition, 54% is generated by sales of electric connectors, a further 24% from fiber-optic cables, and 19% from conventional cable and assembly products. As for the civil-military split, the company is expected to receive 60% of total revenues from its civil applications, growing approximately 10% per annum. Jonhon Optronics reported its full-year results on March 15. Revenues saw a strong increase, jumping 23.7% year over year. Cost growth was also higher, though it slowed from the previous year (up 23.8% year over year). This led to an operating profit increase of 19.7%, but slight margin deterioration. EBITDA margin fell by 77 basis points to 16.98%, and operating margin was down 5 basis points to 14.32. On the other hand, profit margins improved to 12.6% (up 54 basis points) as the bottom line grew by 29.8% year over year. Jonhon Optronics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 24.4x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 15.2% for the next three years. Chart 12Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Helicopter Company Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH): AVIC's helicopter arm (Chart 12). As the name already suggests, the company specializes in helicopter production, which accounts for almost 100% of the overall revenue stream. The main helicopters currently marketed are from the AC series, in particular the AC311, AC312 and AC313, the Z series - Z-8, Z-9 and Z-11. We expect further tailwinds for the company stemming from China's future defense budget. The country's helicopter fleet is still only a tenth of the size of the U.S.'s fleet. It will continue to ramp up production. Export contracts will also support revenue growth for AVIC Helicopter Co. With a strong advance on the Asian military helicopter market, the company is looking to expand in the region. Furthermore, we see some promising developments in the civil helicopter space, with Chinese emergency services and the Civil Aviation Administration ramping up demand. The main headwind might come from the transition to new models, with the new production cycle to be in full force in 2018. AVIC Helicopter Co reported full year results on March 15, which came out weaker than expected. Revenues were virtually flat, contracting by 0.3% year over year, while cost of revenue grew 1.3% year over year. Operating income was also stable relative to last year, contracting 0.4% year over year, helped by an operating expense reduction of 12% year over year. Nevertheless, EBITDA margin declined slightly by 19 basis points to 6.77%, while operating margin fell by 131 basis points to 13.99%. A marginally lower income tax in FY16 allowed the firm to eke out 1.3% year-over-year bottom-line growth. AVIC Helicopters is currently trading at a forward P/E of 48.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13.8% for the next two years. Chart 13Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Aviation Engine Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH): Sole leader in Chinese engine production (Chart 13). Aviation Engine Corporation is part of the government-controlled Aeroengine Corporation of China (AECC), which was established in August 2016 and contributes just under 50% to Being in a monopolistic position on the Chinese market, the company profits from rising military aircraft procurement and prices. As part of the AECC, the company also receives tailwinds from scale effects within the company as well as cost savings in the supply chain. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation reported weak full year results on March 16. Revenue slid 5.5% year over year, but management kept costs under control (down 7.3% year over year). Operating expenses grew only marginally (up 5.2% year over year), which left operating profit flat compared to last year. Margin trends have been strong; EBITDA margin improved by 78 basis points to 13.05%, while operating margin grew by 42 basis points to 7.78%. However, high net interest expense depressed the bottom line, which fell 13.3% year over year. At the same time the company managed to decrease its debt level for the fourth year in a row. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation is currently trading at a forward P/E of 52.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 14.4% for the next two years. Chart 14Performance Since March 2016: ##br## China Avionics Systems Vs. MSCI EM China Avionics Systems (600372 CH): Leading developer and producer of avionics equipment (Chart 14). China Avionics Systems is also a subsidiary of AviChina, which controls 43% of the free float. The company is active in R&D, running several research institutes in the fields of radar, aviation and navigation control as well as aviation computers and software. China Avionics enjoys a near-monopoly on the Chinese aviation electronics market, and also controls over 90% of the military market for air data systems. Looking at the revenue breakdown, 80% of total revenues come from military contracts, while it is expected that the share of civil revenues will increase with the development of civil aircraft in the country. Aircraft data acquisition devices contribute the most to overall revenue, at 25% of total, followed by airborne sensors at 15%, auto-pilot systems at 14%, distance-sensing alarm systems at 9.5%, and air data systems at 9%. The company reported full year results on March 16. Revenues experienced a mild increase of 1.9% year over year, while costs increased at the same pace (2% year over year). On the operating side, costs increased by 3% year over year, suppressing income by 1% year over year. EBITDA margin fell 37 basis points to 15.15%, while operating margin contracted 30 basis points to 10.60%. The bottom line contracted 3.5% year over year. China Avionics Systems is currently trading at a forward P/E of 55.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13% for the next two years. Chart 15Performance Since March 2016: ##br## Huntington Ingalls Industries Vs. S&P 500 Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US): Largest listed U.S. military shipbuilder (Chart 15). Initially a part of Northrop Grumman, Huntington was spun off and listed in 2011. Huntington enjoys a monopolistic market position, as over 70% of the current U.S. Navy fleet was designed and built by the company's Newport News or Ingalls divisions in Virginia and Mississippi. Huntington is currently the sole designer, builder and re-fueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. In the nuclear submarines space, the company has one competitor: the Electric Boat unit of General Dynamics. The company also provides a range of services through its Technical Solutions division, centered around fleet support, integrated missions solutions and nuclear and oil and gas operations. Huntington reported full-year results on February 16. Full year revenue was virtually flat (+1% on quarterly basis), while costs increased slightly by 1.6% year over year. The company managed to reduce operating expenses, which fell by 16% to the lowest level since 2010. This helped boost operating profit by 13% year over year. EBITDA margin improved by an impressive 125 basis points to 14.77%, and operating margin was up by 119 basis points to 12.14%. New orders grew by US$5.2 billion, bringing the total pipeline to US$21 billion. The bottom line jumped by 45% year over year, helped by a lower income tax bill and a one-off after-tax adjustment. Huntington Ingalls Industries is currently trading at a forward P/E of 18.1x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 4.2% for the next two years. Chart 16Performance Since March 2016: ##br## General Dynamics Vs. S&P 500 General Dynamics (GD US): Primary contractor for U.S. Navy submarines (Chart 16). General Dynamics is a multinational defense corporation and currently the fourth-largest defense company in the world. The company has four business segments, from which we are mainly interested in the marine systems segment, contributing 25% of overall group revenue. The marine systems segment is represented by General Dynamics' unlisted subsidiary, GD Electric Boat. Electric Boat has long been the main builder of nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy out of Connecticut, and is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries of the U.S. Navy expansion program under the Trump administration. General Dynamics reported full-year results on January 27, which generally came in flat. Revenue fell by a marginal 0.4% year over year (after the adoption of a new revenue-recognition standard), but the company did a good job in managing costs, which contracted by 1% year over year. Operating income grew by 4% year over year, helped by lower operating costs. Margins improved across the board; EBITDA margin went up 45 basis points to 15.19%, while operating margin was up 54 basis points to 13.74%. The bottom line grew 5% year over year. Management seem confident in their guidance through 2020, including detailed but conservative estimates. Especially promising was the good pipeline visibility in the marine segment, driven by the company's Columbia-class submarine sales. General Dynamics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 19.3x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 6.5% for the next two years. How To Trade? The GPS/EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of five Chinese companies and two U.S. companies. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). ETFs: At current time there is one listed ETF covering the China defense sector: Guotai CSI National Defense ETF (512660 CH); And three listed ETFs covering the U.S. defense sector: iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA US); SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR US); PowerShares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio (PPA US). Funds: At current time there are no funds with significant defense sector exposure. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on a straight long trade. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). For convenience, the performance of both market cap-weighted and equally-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To The Investment Case The largest risk to our investment case - leaving aside company-specific risks - would be an unexpected fading away of the tensions in China's near seas, and of China's and America's military spending ambitions. Such a development - which would require a robust diplomatic agreement and an about-face from what the leaders have stated - would hit the weapons producers. Though such a settlement would not necessarily occur overnight, or receive immediate publicity, it would be observable over the course of negotiations between the Trump and Xi administrations. A key event to watch is the upcoming April summit between the two leaders. At the same time, the large momentum in the defense industry (with very long production pipelines), and the very low flexibility of defense budgeting, means that we are comfortable in terms of timing an exit should geopolitical tensions begin to recede. Another risk might come from a slowdown in economic growth in China or the U.S., which could lead to cuts in defense budgets. Nevertheless, in a case of a further escalation in China's near-abroad, we would most likely see defense spending continue to grow despite any weak economic performance, warranted by strategic needs. This is a key dynamic that investors should understand. Strategic distrust between the U.S. and China has worsened since the Great Recession, indicating that the preceding period of strong growth helped keep a lid on U.S.-China tensions. Now the two countries have entered a dilemma in which relations have soured despite their economic recoveries, since both sides are using growth to fuel military development, yet an economic relapse would fuel further distrust. Only a high-level political settlement can break this spiral and such settlements between strategic rivals traditionally require a "crisis." Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The United States sent the USS Carl Vinson carrier group to the South China Sea as part of Freedom of Navigation Operations that the Trump administration may intensify; China is involved in a new spat about "environmental" monitoring stations in the Paracel Islands and in Scarborough Shoal, and is also increasing activity east of the Philippines; it is threatening to impose a new law that would govern foreign ships' access; the question of a Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone lingers; and China has also begun sending large tourist groups to the Paracels. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013 and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Most notably in 1971, 1974, 1988, 1995, 2001, and 2011-14. In the two biggest "battles," 1974 and 1988, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracel Islands and parts of the Spratly Islands, respectively. These conflicts took place in the context of Vietnam's wars with itself, the U.S., and China, just as the recent rise in tensions takes place in the context of China's emergence as a global power - in other words, international tensions are the cause and maritime-territorial disputes are but a symptom. 7 Most notably the HS981 showdown between China and Vietnam in 2014, which occurred when China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) moved a large mobile drilling rig into the farthest southwest island of the Paracel Islands, near Triton Island, triggering a months-long skirmish with Vietnamese coast guard ships and fishermen that involved Chinese warships and aircraft and the sinking of at least one Vietnamese fishing boat. 8 In fact, officers from China's People's Liberation Army-Navy's southern fleet have recently written publicly and approvingly of the well-known Chinese tactic of fighting "behind a civilian front" to establish control over the sea - which has involved a host of private and public actions covering fishing, energy, coast guard, administration, science and environment, and tourism. Please see "Chinese Military's Dominance in S. China Sea Complete: Report," Kyodo News, March 20, 2017. 9 Please see Bonnie S. Glaser, "Armed Clash In The South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14, April 2012, available at cfr.org. Separately, an American diplomatic estimate from 2016 claims that "more than half the world's merchant fleet tonnage" passes through these waters; see Colin Willett, "Statement ... Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee ... 'South China Sea Maritime Disputes,'" July 7, 2016, available at docs.house.gov [http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20160707/105160/HHRG-114-AS28-Wstate-WillettC-20160707.pdf]. A Chinese study estimates that 47.5% of China's total foreign trade in goods transited the sea in 2014; see Du D. B., Ma Y. H. et al, "China's Maritime Transportation Security And Its Measures Of Safeguard," World Regional Studies 24:2 (2015), pp. 1-10. 10 When President Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified remarks at his senate confirmation hearing in which he threatened that the U.S. would deny China's access to the islands in the South China Sea, he reformulated his statement to say that in the event of a contingency the U.S. needed to be "capable of limiting China's access to and use of its artificial islands" to threaten the U.S. and its allies and partners. 11 Please see footnote 3 above. Another potential implication might be a weaker U.S. position in the partition of the Arctic shelf (which has far more hydrocarbon reserves than the South China Sea), which U.S. rivals like Russia will pursue next against the claims of the U.S. and its allies Norway, Canada, and Denmark. 12 Please see Robert Haddick, Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2014). 13 It is understood by multiple sources that these missiles cannot be defended successfully against by current anti-missile technology, with one potential exclusion - the recently tested SM-6 Dual I. Otherwise, possible defense methods would lie in the realm of electronic countermeasures. 14 We believe, with medium conviction, that the incoming administration in South Korea will remove the THAAD missile defense sometime in 2017 or 2018 in what would be a major diplomatic quarrel between Seoul and Washington. This is because the soon-to-be ruling Minjoo Party (Democratic Party) will seek to engage North Korea and mend relations with China, and the latter countries' top demand will be removal of the missile defense system that was only put in place in a rushed manner in the final days of the discredited and impeached Park Geun-hye administration. Such a removal would illustrate the U.S.'s disadvantages relative to China in having to deal with alliances, basing, and force structure in a foreign region. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Joint Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA)," dated December 14, 2016, and Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2016.